# Opposite views on soloing - need backup



## Zeetwig (Nov 7, 2012)

Yesterday I had a little discussion with a friend of mine regarding playing solos (shredding solos and non-shred solos), and I need backup here!

I claimed that the most common way of creating solos is to:
1. improvise or visualize/"audiolize" a solo
2. write the solo
3. practice to get it up to speed and/or get it right
4. done

He claimed that all soloing is to be done on the fly, no practice, no preparation, no "audiolizing" or anything like that, just pure improvisation. I said that this is possible if you play technically more easy solos, but if you want to play a complex solo that incorporates some shred you must at least do a few "testruns" before you have the entire solo finished. He said the opposite, and claimed that guitarists that cannot come up with solos on the fly (shred or no shred) are not that good at their instrument :S

Rather pissed off I told him that most people don't share his views, but he wouldn't believe me, so here I am. Who do you agree with? Do solos (especially technical solos) need preparation and practice, or not?


Also, I claimed that to play shred solos you have to have a "library" of licks that you combine into a solo. You cannot come up with entirely new licks on the fly. (With library I mean a repertoire of licks (that can be tweaked a little but the core shape is still the same), using different techniques and playing styles in the different licks - for instance combining a string-skipping lick with an alt picked lick and finishing with a sweeped arpeggio, all learned and practiced before the solo was written).

He said that if that's the case shred is false... -.-

What do you think?




(oh and btw, if this is the wrong section just move this thread please)


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples (Nov 7, 2012)

Well you're both right, sorta.
- I think you gotta be able to play some stuff on the spot
- Not preparing anything at all is just plain silly


I mean, I have some (simpler) stuff that I make up on the spot but it's not like I'm going to pull out a brand new 8 finger tapping run every time I pick up a guitar.

Important thing is that you know what you're doing, doesn't matter when you come up with it. Hell, I come up with half my solos when I'm in the shower.

I don't remember who said this (I wanna say Gambale?), but it was something along the lines of 'a guitarist knows what what he is going to play will sound like whether he come up with it half a second or half a decade before he plays it'


----------



## ElRay (Nov 7, 2012)

One example: Rush

It's very common for Alex to lay-down three or four tracks worth of semi-improvisational ideas for each solo, and then he & Geddy create the solo, on the editing board, from bits & pieces and then Alex learns the "created" solo.


Ray


----------



## tedtan (Nov 7, 2012)

Both approaches are common. Composing and then practicing a solo stems from the classical (and in a broader sense, the western, as in European) musical tradition while improvising a solo stems from the jazz (and in a broader sense, the African and middle eastern) musical tradition.

Composing a solo is more common in the rock and metal genres, though both approaches are equally valid regardless of gernre.

Personally, I prefer to see a live performance take the music somewhere beyond the recording, otherwise I can just listen to the recording, so I favor hearing a player improvise if he is a good improviser. The last singer I worked with, however, wanted to hear a spot on reproduction of the recording without any improv whatsoever, so this issue is very much one of personal preference.


----------



## Grimbold (Nov 7, 2012)

erm
you HAVE to prepare
that said, as other people have pointed out, its important to be able to improvise too


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

Presuming you're talking about metal, yeah, you're pretty much entirely right.


----------



## Solodini (Nov 7, 2012)

While licks aren't the only way, you'll have some preparation under your belt, even if you're improvising. You'll have developed tastes and experience which lead you as you go. If you're ignoring that stuff then you're probably not playing for music's sake but to show off.


----------



## edsped (Nov 7, 2012)

Your friend sounds extremely close minded in that regard.


----------



## Zeetwig (Nov 7, 2012)

Yeah he is rather close minded on some subjects. He is not the greatest metal fan on Earth, and he is more into progressive music, so IMO what he says might be more true if we were talking about progressive music only, but since we were talking about rock and metal and solos in general I disagree with him.

And even David Gilmour (his favorite guitar player) have some licks up his sleeve that he uses. As I see it, even when people are improvising they are playing licks that they have sort of played before. They might not hit the exact same notes, but they play with a style/feeling that they have practiced to achieve, and thus they are not fully improvising but playing licks and note combinations that they have more or less played before. I doubt it that when people are improvising they just pick a random note and then pick another random note and think "lets see how this sounds". Especially live! (sorry for repeating you Solodini)

Also, if you are playing anything that's a little faster you need to know the licks like the back of your hand or else you'll screw up. You cannot think as fast as you can play (mostly), so you have to practice until you can play without actively thinking of every note you play.

Alt picking might be the only semi-exception to this as you can just alt pick random note combinations, but even here you must have practiced alt picking runs and alt picking scales or else you'll just play an incoherent mass of untight notes.


@tedtan
Isn't improvising live a bit risky? Especially in faster and more technically challenging songs? I've never heard a guitarist improvise live, but then I've mainly been at metal and a few hard rock concerts.


----------



## Solodini (Nov 7, 2012)

Nothing wrong with repeating me or anyone else. That's kinda the point of the thread! You learn your tastes from listening to others and building on elements of that.


----------



## Alex6534 (Nov 7, 2012)

If the song calls for it, I'll compose the solo. That's when I want something specific or there is a particular point I want to get across. Otherwise, bust out the blues scale and see what new tasty licks you come up with 

Also, I find the more I improvise, the more licks I make, which then can make it easier to compose a solo


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

I improvise 99% of my solos on recordings and live. Typically I only write out solos if they are harmonised, but a rare song gets a composed solo.

Improvising live is only risky if you don't know what you're doing.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 7, 2012)

Zeetwig said:


> @tedtan
> Isn't improvising live a bit risky? Especially in faster and more technically challenging songs? I've never heard a guitarist improvise live, but then I've mainly been at metal and a few hard rock concerts.


 
I don't recall ever having seen a metal show with any real improvisation, either. Metal primarily comes from the classical/western musical tradition, and improvising is not a big part of that tadition, outside of writing the songs, solos, etc. But I once saw jazz guitarist George Benson play a medium size club (maybe 500 people). I almost didn't go to the show because I've never been a fan of his recorded music; it comes off to me as smooth jazz / pop / easy listening / boring music for old people, but his live show blew me away. He came off as almost a bebop type player improvising blazing runs over complex chord changes. It was as if he were channeling (deceased jazz saxophones players) Charlie Parker and John Coltrane, and that whole sheets of sound movement.

What does that have to do with your question? Merely to point out that improvising can be done over complex chords and changes, including fast runs, even though it is not common in metal. (I don't recommend trying to improvise new sweep picking shapes on the fly, at least not in front of an audience . Stick to the alternate picking, etc.)

Note that when I refer to improvising, I don't mean that the player is just hitting random notes to see how it may turn out, but rather that the player is playing a solo they haven't played before. Sometimes it is a completely new solo, sometimes it is a combination of known licks combined with new meolodies, etc. There seems to be a zone that an improviser gets into. When they are in this zone they are playing new material almost like they are on auto pilot. I have experienced this myself when improvising, and wish there were a way to go into the zone on command. Unfortunately there is not, so improvisers also often have off nights (as you pointed out, it can be risky). So how do they put on a good show for the audience on an off night? They switch to using licks, much like you mentioned how David Gilmour does. This way they can still pull off an interesting solo when they have nothing worked out.

So now we have three approaches:

1. "Pure improvisation" (highest risk) - the solo is made up on the spot. Keep in mind that the player is not randomly hitting notes. He knows the chord progession, he knows which scale(s) and arpeggio(s) work with both the individual chords in the progression (called playing the changes) and with the progression as a whole (called key centered playing), he has spent thousands of hours learning to hear a melody in his head and translate that melody into music via his fretboard, and has improvised over these particular chords MANY times before going on stage. He is prepared for the task at hand.

2. Normal improvisation (medium risk) - the solo is made of licks and scale fragments/patterns and some new melodies, etc. Maybe even some worked out parts. It's pretty common to start an impovised solo (in both "normal" and "pure" approaches) with a known lick and end on a prearranged lick a signal to the other band members that its the end of the solo.

3. Composed solo (lowest risk) - solo composed prior to performance.

Keep in mind that blues players improvise over the I-IV-V progression, and get good at improvising over the I-IV-V progression. Jazz plyers get good at improvising over the ii-V-I progreesion. (Typically, even the most complex jazz piece, with complex chords changing every beat or every other beat, can usually be broken down into nothing more than a series of ii-V-I progreesions.)

Now, what typical metal chord progression do we have? NONE. Each piece is free to to move from any chord to any other chord at any point in the song. This is a big part of why improvisation does not play a larger role in most metal music.


----------



## Dayn (Nov 7, 2012)

Your friend is silly. They don't need to be improvised, nor do they need to be composed prior. I recall a DragonForce interview... Herman Li improvises his solos, whereas Sam Totman composes his stuff beforehand.

So it can definitely be improvised, even in shred. But it really depends on _what_ your solo is trying to convey. A spur-of-the-moment improvisation? Or does it contain a melodic idea that you want to convey that has to be executed the way you planned it? Both work, but I like the planned stuff because far more thought has gone into it.

But even then, in subsequent live performances, these prepared solos are often tweaked a bit. I would just chalk that up to the nature of an artist: a piece is never finished and can always be improved upon. Especially something as fluid and malleable as music.


----------



## InfinityCollision (Nov 7, 2012)

You're both wrong.

-He's wrong because solos do not HAVE to be improvised, unless we're talking about a genre where that's a core feature of the music (given the topic, this is clearly not the case). This is entirely at the musician's discretion.
-You're wrong because it's fully possible to improvise in a highly technical manner (Holdsworth is a well-known example), you don't NEED a library of licks (I actually argue against building one, as I find it limits creativity), and it's entirely possible to come up with new licks on the fly. I do this all the time, with and without an instrument in my hands. It's good practice for composition even if you don't make improv part of your set.


----------



## Aspiringmaestro (Nov 7, 2012)

Improvising is like having a conversation. When you talk with someone you don't necessarily know where the conversation will go, but you're not making up new words as you go. You talk about things that you have thought about with words that you understand, and sometimes during the course of your conversation you'll notice a connection between two pieces of information that you hadn't noticed before, which is the point of having a conversation.


----------



## celticelk (Nov 7, 2012)

If you want to see excellent improvised guitar in a rock/metal setting, catch a Living Colour show. Vernon's still killing it.


----------



## Indigenous (Nov 7, 2012)

I feel like in order to be able to just improvise anything on the spot, you have to do a shit ton of practicing to figure what lines you want to use over what chord progressions. You'll hear a lot of the old great jazz players saying that they just play what they hear. What they leave out is the twenty odd years of practice they spent learning how to play the lines that they hear. 

For example, I have a million licks that I could use over a two-five that I have spent time in the practice room working out and plugging into songs. That way, when I improvise, I have the freedom to choose between those lines or mix them all around however I want. It's what I'm hearing in my head, but at the same time it's what I have worked out beforehand.


----------



## Trespass (Nov 8, 2012)

This is entirely improvised, it's very structured and filled with tons and tons of melody and thematic development.
The song itself (All The Things You Are) It moves through 5 key signatures throughout the 32 bar "chorus" (Ab major, Eb major, C major, G major, E major).







On average, that's a new key every 5 bars. Pat's blowing at what? 220-250bpm here?

Don't believe he's improvising? There are something like 10 unique versions of Pat doing it with all sorts of different groups live on Youtube, and each one is different.


----------



## DTSH (Nov 8, 2012)

Pat Metheny - Weird shirts, weirder hair, amazing player. 

I've done each, for different songs. I think a distinction has to be made between a "solo" which might be more improvised and a "lead part" which would definitely be written. It also depends on the kind of music, what you want to get out of it, etc... I think the hard and fast rule is that there are no real rules.


----------



## Edika (Nov 8, 2012)

Well I have discussed with several jazz players and what they've told me is that the actual improvisation is about 20% or less. What they do is learn scales, arpeggios and chord progressions on scales and then try to find what sounds good to them to create their style/sound by countless hours of playing behind backing tracks. Then experiment some more when they have that down. 
It may come easier to some than others and it seems like it is natural after some point but to think that they are just going in and winging it out of the blue is laughable at best.


----------



## pawel (Nov 8, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I don't recall ever having seen a metal show with any real improvisation, either. Metal primarily comes from the classical/western musical tradition, and improvising is not a big part of that tadition, outside of writing the songs, solos, etc. But I once saw jazz guitarist George Benson play a medium size club (maybe 500 people). I almost didn't go to the show because I've never been a fan of his recorded music; it comes off to me as smooth jazz / pop / easy listening / boring music for old people, but his live show blew me away. He came off as almost a bebop type player improvising blazing runs over complex chord changes. It was as if he were channeling (deceased jazz saxophones players) Charlie Parker and John Coltrane, and that whole sheets of sound movement.



I think Benson was always recognised as an extremely skilled bop guitarist who decided to go the smooth jazz/soul route (for fun, chicks, or money I presume), but he clearly can still do it. 

As everyone pointed out - both approaches are valid and you can create great solos both ways. I think in the rock/metal idiom even improvised solos need some some preparation - i.e. you probably need to have an idea of where you want to start and where you want to end up, especially if you want to convey some of the chord changes etc. That's very much the case with someone like Gilmour - his solos may change, but there are certain elements and hooks that will need to be there. 

Even in the jazz idiom players will know the changes they are playing through, they will have played countless solos over certain changes (ii-V-Is etc.) and they will have a few 'stock' licks that will get them through these changes. They will have a large library of these and they might not always use them, but some of the building blocks are pre-prepared in a sense.

Hell, even if you listen to free improv and the more spontaneous music, there are certain techniques and sounds used in particular situations. It is extremely difficult to rid yourself of everything you learned and played in the past and start with a blank slate.

Edit: Edika beat me to my jazz point...


----------



## tedtan (Nov 8, 2012)

DTSH said:


> there are no real rules.


 
 This.

The various approaches are best viewed as tools within the artist's toolbox. Pull out the appropriate tool for the job, which in this case is self expression, so only you can choose the best approach for the task at hand.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 8, 2012)

pawel said:


> I think Benson was always recognised as an extremely skilled bop guitarist who decided to go the smooth jazz/soul route (for fun, chicks, or money I presume), but he clearly can still do it.


 
I didn't know anything about him or his background at the time, so that performance came from out of left field. I was not experting what I saw at all. In fact, it probably impressed me much more in this context than it would have if I had been expecting a bop /post bop player.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 8, 2012)

Do your solos however it is it makes sense to you. I remember back in the day I was talking to Tre Watson about soloing. My approach was similar to yours. I improvise a solo first. Then I listen to what I played, take the parts I like, scrap the parts I don't and continue "improvising" new solos based off what I liked from previous solos.

Tre told me that when he solos if he doesn't like one he just completely improvs a whole new one altogether. This may not be the case anymore as I haven't had such discussions with him in a while, but it just goes to show everyone has their own methods and there are no rights or wrongs if you get the desired result.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 8, 2012)

It's all good! I love many players who use one or the other or both. 

^ I've typically done the same kind of thing, improv on several takes and taking my favorite ideas/themes and building a solo around them. I noticed that what really counts is to play it like I mean it. The first improv time always has this special feeling to it, but once I've learned the solo I put together if I treat it as something I'm really "singing" I can get the same thing... if I just treat it more like "I have to play this part" it doesn't have it!

What I'm trying to do on at least some songs now is work out some intricate melodies that I'll learn through and through, as melody sections, and leave a solo section in the rhythm guitar that I won't even TOUCH until the last day. Then I'll try to record an on the spot improv solo for those parts. I seem to have the best ideas the first few times, so I want to get them! Preparation is that when I'm jamming out I try and play everything as if it's "for keeps" (ie. so that first/second/third fresh approach doesn't have mistakes)... which is a good attitude to have regardless!


----------



## Robrecht (Nov 8, 2012)

No matter how much of a genius you are at improvising a blistering solo, it'll probably get _even better _if you try a few runs, tie up the inevitable loose ends, pick the best parts of each try and carefully arrange them to optimally explore the harmonic possibilities of the underlying chords. And what's wrong with wanting to make your music even better?

So yeah, it's a nice ambition but a silly rule.


----------



## Trespass (Nov 8, 2012)

Edika said:


> Well I have discussed with several jazz players and what they've told me is that the actual improvisation is about 20% or less. What they do is learn scales, arpeggios and chord progressions on scales and then try to find what sounds good to them to create their style/sound by countless hours of playing behind backing tracks. Then experiment some more when they have that down.
> It may come easier to some than others and it seems like it is natural after some point but to think that they are just going in and winging it out of the blue is laughable at best.



I am a professional jazz musician (pianist).

The jazz world is split into two camps. Those that are regurgitating licks, lines and other nonsense in a cookie cutter, collage type approach to playing over changes.

Examples would be: Oscar Peterson, Benson (quite often), Joe Pass, the vast majority of college grads

--

and the other side are the cats who are trying to improvise actual melodies over the original melody. As in, playing the tune, not playing the changes. 
(Case in point - 1/2 of Charlie Parker tunes are blues's. How could he possibly keep you entertained throughout a set if he kept playing the same licks over the same changes)

Ex) Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Coltrane*, Monk etc. etc.

*Coltrane falls a bit into both camps. He specifically invented cell and sequence based ideas to further expand harmony, and for the energy of consistent ideas shifting harmonically over the original harmony

Ex) Substituting from Giant Steps progression over a one chord vamp, or side stepping, or sequencing etc.


----------



## groovemasta (Nov 8, 2012)

To edika, are you considering playing arpeggios and scales that fit over a chord not improvising ? (not using predetermined licks)

Trespass, just wondering what you think of musicians like Jonathan Kreisbeg, Gilad Hekelsman and early Rosenwinkel. Do you consider that 'collage type' playing?


----------



## Phlegethon (Nov 8, 2012)

Here's my take on things. I work on the premise that your instrument is your voice, so whenever you're performing you're speaking in public. 

Now if you're speaking publicly, then what you're saying is how you're representing yourself to the world. so how do you want to represent yourself? do you want to put thought into what you say, and what kinds of things do you have to say when you are speaking? 

sometimes a casual conversation is the best thing (I would equate this to doing a solo off the cuff without any kind of prep) for the moment, sometimes spending some time before saying something is the best course of action (actually preparing for a solo by thinking about what you want to do before cutting it). There is no universally "right" solution to something as subjective as art, it all varies with every musical situation

Don't agree with the "off the cuff, no practice ... etc" attitude. using that method implies several things that are rather counterproductive and untrue. I think the worst offender would be the one that implies the more you know about something (guitar playing) the lower your overall skill level will be. 

I see it like this: if I want to get to the point where I am able to say something intelligent and meaningful without thought, I'm going to have to have a large vocabulary (music theory), excellent grammar (the technique to play guitar), the ability to keep someone's interest (playing appropriately. no blues licks in a slipknot song, you know?), and an awareness that what I'm saying isn't vulgar/offensive/socially inappropriate (experience gained from listening, assimilating, and playing music over time). Doing all this without effort and/or preparation at any given time isn't something that just happens. it's something that needs to be worked at continuously


----------



## celticelk (Nov 8, 2012)

Robrecht said:


> No matter how much of a genius you are at improvising a blistering solo, it'll probably get _even better _if you try a few runs, tie up the inevitable loose ends, pick the best parts of each try and carefully arrange them to optimally explore the harmonic possibilities of the underlying chords. And what's wrong with wanting to make your music even better?
> 
> So yeah, it's a nice ambition but a silly rule.



Define "better." No, seriously.


----------



## Trespass (Nov 8, 2012)

groovemasta said:


> To edika, are you considering playing arpeggios and scales that fit over a chord not improvising ? (not using predetermined licks)
> 
> Trespass, just wondering what you think of musicians like Jonathan Kreisbeg, Gilad Hekelsman and early Rosenwinkel. Do you consider that 'collage type' playing?



Early Rosenwinkel and Kreisberg, yes. 
Rosenwinkel is excused because his writing has consistently been fantastic since the beginning, and stylistically he pretty much defined the modern jazz guitar sound as we know it. 

He's taken so many risks over the years like Heartcore, the legato approach, his harmonic subs, and even in performance. His current playing is really engaging, strong, and full of a lot of really thoughtful harmonic color and rhythmic interest.

There's a reason why everyone is a Rosenwinkel clone these days. It's just so good.

Hekselman is definitely in the latter camp. Incredibly melodic player.
(Although, at times he can get a bit "runny" when it doesn't fit)

Kreisberg has that Bill Evans elegance going on these days, and has pretty interesting compositional and arranging taste. Early Kreisberg is pretty blah. Technically great, but no story or narrative that's engaging.

To me, these three guys have escaped the goofy collegiate "I'm playing lifeless versions of 50s bop in 2000s" or "I'm just a direct clone of x, y" and have crafted some really strong stories in their live and recorded outlook.
I've had the pleasure of meeting Kreisberg quite a few times


----------



## Robrecht (Nov 9, 2012)

celticelk said:


> Define "better." No, seriously.



I can think of many legitimate scenarios and approaches to music where "better" would entail leaving the spontaneity of that first improvised take intact, warts and all.

But the way I understood the OP's friend's point, it was more about technical prowess and the prestige of "not cheating" than about spontaneity.

When it comes to technical, shred-type soloing, the "capturing the moment" aspect is less important than in, say, a blues lead, and the aim of the music is probably better served by putting a little more (after)thought into it. The ability to improvise is an important part of a musician's capabilities, and usually the starting point of a great solo, but demanding that everything has to happen right then and there just seems elitist to me... I mean, there's a thread right now about whether certain studio tricks (recording measure-by-measure, slowed down...) are ok or not. Could you imagine that someone started a similar thread here complaining that Necrophagist's songs are all rehearsed and composed, rather than made up on the fly in a single stroke of genius? But that's essentially what the OP's friend says: "shred is false".

By the way, when I think of the warts-and-all approach, the first thing that comes to mind is Marc Ribot's work, especially those amazing pseudo-primitive, cubistic lines he plays on Tom Waits records. But I can imagine that even he tries a couple of different takes and then composes the final version using the parts that work best, even if "best" here means "most basic and spontaneous sounding".


----------



## CRaul87 (Nov 9, 2012)

Zeetwig said:


> Yesterday I had a little discussion with a friend of mine regarding playing solos (shredding solos and non-shred solos), and I need backup here!
> 
> I claimed that the most common way of creating solos is to:
> 1. improvise or visualize/"audiolize" a solo
> ...



Ask your friend to apply that same theory of his to a whole song. Then we'll see what's what
If a song is composed and rehearsed beforehand why would a solo be any different? 
Anyway I'm totally biased here since all my stuff is strictly composed and simply there is no room for improv because of it's structure but whatever... I guess in other genres it could be mildly valid what he sais but even then...


----------



## pawel (Nov 9, 2012)

Trespass said:


> Early Rosenwinkel and Kreisberg, yes.
> Rosenwinkel is excused because his writing has consistently been fantastic since the beginning, and stylistically he pretty much defined the modern jazz guitar sound as we know it.
> 
> He's taken so many risks over the years like Heartcore, the legato approach, his harmonic subs, and even in performance. His current playing is really engaging, strong, and full of a lot of really thoughtful harmonic color and rhythmic interest.
> ...



Helpful insight - To me there is a lot of appeal in what you would call the first group of "collage" players if there is a certain level of seamlessness and spontaneity. Someone like Holdsworth is probably more a "collage" player, but he totally makes it his own (I guess it's not surprising considering he set off to emulate Coltrane on guitar). In more traditional vein, Pat Martino has taken this to a level that really works for me as well. More recently I do tend to gravitate towards the Bill Frisell school of "jazz" guitar though. 

OT: After all these years, I still never fully got into Kurt Rosenwinkel and I am sure I am missing a lot. A lot of the albums I listened to had a pretty big emphasis on ensemble playing - what would you recommend that would tip the balance even more towards him as a soloist?


----------



## Zeetwig (Nov 9, 2012)

Alex6534 said:


> Also, I find the more I improvise, the more licks I make, which then can make it easier to compose a solo



Good point! :y:



Aspiringmaestro said:


> Improvising is like having a conversation. When you talk with someone you don't necessarily know where the conversation will go, but you're not making up new words as you go. You talk about things that you have thought about with words that you understand, and sometimes during the course of your conversation you'll notice a connection between two pieces of information that you hadn't noticed before, which is the point of having a conversation.



I really liked this simile (or whatever it's called  ) Very good point!



CRaul87 said:


> If a song is composed and rehearsed beforehand why would a solo be any different?



Also another very good point!


In fact, I agree with almost every one of you  Now I have over 30 replies to shove in his face (or rather politely present to him so he can shove his views himself, as I do not intend to lower myself to his level). Thank you 


And thank you for helping me out off-topic as well  I've heard some pretty nice methods of writing/constructing and/or improvising solos that I am definitely going to try  Also, I didn't know that metal was more closely related to classic and western music than african. I always thought that metal spawned from rock, that in turn spawned from rock n' roll, that is a combination of some western and a lot of african. You learn something new every day  I have never thought about the lack of typical chord progressions in metal either. You guys really gave me more than I asked for! Thanks!


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 9, 2012)

Zeetwig said:


> Also, I didn't know that metal was more closely related to classic and western music than african. I always thought that metal spawned from rock, that in turn spawned from rock n' roll, that is a combination of some western and a lot of african. You learn something new every day



As with a lot of things, there is no clear delineation. If you look at the beginnings of metal music, Led Zeppelin, Judas Priest, Motorhead, and the ilk, there is a clear blues/rock and roll association. That blues (African-influenced) sound has survived into metal's more recent incarnations (Pantera and Black Label Society come to mind). Remember, though, that the blues is a cultural fusion of both African and Western music in the first place. That sound is fairly archaic now, particularly in the whole tech death scene, but one can still find its vestiges. Interestingly, the fascination that has cropped up around polyrhythms in about the past decade or so reintroduces the African element to a music that is, harmonically speaking, more European. Mind you, polyrhythm has always been an element of Afro-American music, but the current trend investigates polyrhythm as it has existed in West African music for hundreds of years.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 9, 2012)

SchecterWhore said:


> As with a lot of things, there is no clear delineation. If you look at the beginnings of metal music, Led Zeppelin, Judas Priest, Motorhead, and the ilk, there is a clear blues/rock and roll association. That blues (African-influenced) sound has survived into metal's more recent incarnations (Pantera and Black Label Society come to mind). Remember, though, that the blues is a cultural fusion of both African and Western music in the first place. That sound is fairly archaic now, particularly in the whole tech death scene, but one can still find its vestiges.


 

This shows how subjective this can be, because I never considered Led Zeppelin metal. To me, they were always rock. They definitely pushed the boundaries of the genre, so we could possibly call them progressive rock (in the literal sense of the word progressive, not the modern definition of the genre), but not metal. Ive always considered Priests earliest albums, along with Motorhead, rock rather than metal as well.

The first band I can call metal is Black Sabbath. Their first album came out in 1970, and while it does have some blues and rock influences, it is clearly metal. It sounds distinctly different from the rock bands before or since. It just sounds like metal, a distinctly different entity than rock.

During the 70s, other bands began playing metal as well - Priest became a metal band (IMO) somewhere in the mid to late seventies, Uli Roth era Scorpions, Iron Maidens early demos (_The Soundhouse Tapes_), etc. Im sure Im missing many others, but I cant think of anything else off the top of my head at the moment.

These bands all share some common elements that define metals early sound:

· Primarily straight rather than swung rhythms

· Timing that is very much on top of, or slightly ahead of, the beat rather than the laid back timing of most rock (sure Iommi s timing varies a bit in different songs, but he is an outlier. I mean, compare that to Keith Richards, who was (is?) often so far behind the beat he is almost on top of the next beat )

· Songs and solos that are largely composed rather than improvised

· Melodies and harmonies largely based upon Aeolian, Phrygian and, to a lesser extent, Harmonic Minor, along with chromatic embellishments, especially the b5, but also the borrowing of the natural 7 from the Harmonic Minor for use in Aeolian and Phrygian pieces, etc.

These elements derive from the western music tradition. They are why I associate metal with classical music (which have a WHOLE LOT in common with each other), whereas I associate rock with American music (blues, early country, etc.). And while modern metal bands have incorporated a much more sophisticated approach to melody, harmony and rhythm in more recent metal music, most of these elements are present in modern metal as well, especially the first three points.





SchecterWhore said:


> Interestingly, the fascination that has cropped up around polyrhythms in about the past decade or so reintroduces the African element to a music that is, harmonically speaking, more European. Mind you, polyrhythm has always been an element of Afro-American music, but the current trend investigates polyrhythm as it has existed in West African music for hundreds of years.


 

This is a good point. I was thinking of the overall history of metal music when I first posted my thoughts on how metal derived from western music, but this illustrates how modern metal is in fact incorporating more African elements into the mix.


----------



## Whammy (Nov 9, 2012)

Soloists range from pure theory to the point that they decide what scales they want and work it out note for note to the opposite end of the spectrum, where it's purely aural and every note is visualised in their head. They nearly know what they're going to hit before they do.

Then there is the average person who can fall anywhere in between the two ranges I mentioned.

Having already learned patterns for certain scales really helps when it comes to improvising as it allows you to focus more on creativity with out the fear of hitting "wrong" notes.
Not to say someone without this knowledge can't write a solo. Of course they can, but generally knowing the scales speeds up the process.

Knowing more scales & modes again helps in being creative as it allows you to add different flavors to what the majority may play.

I have never worked with someone who can write an entire and complex solo with out it needing some work. And never have I worked with someone who improvised a full and complex solo and actually remembered every note!
I also have never worked with someone who can work it all out with theory and have a solo that doesn't lack a soul.
But those people are out there somewhere, they are just rare.


Is there a correct way to write solos? No.

Is there an actual definition for the word "Shred" which states that "Shredding is when guitarists write full solos on the fly"? Maybe, but I never heard it.


----------



## MrPowers (Nov 9, 2012)

I completely agree that in metal and rock music it is rare to see improvisation. I can't really improvise solos for them. 

But when it comes to worship music I never play the same thing twice and its always improvisation. 

So like everyone's said it just depends on the player and the genre.


----------



## InfinityCollision (Nov 9, 2012)

Whammy said:


> Soloists range from pure theory to the point that they decide what scales they want and work it out note for note to the opposite end of the spectrum, where it's purely aural and every note is visualised in their head. They nearly know what they're going to hit before they do.


What's the difference?


----------



## sear (Nov 10, 2012)

Unless I am going for something very specific, I improvise all my solos and gradually refine the ideas down until I get something I'm satisfied with compositionally. Even so I find it's faster to just sit down and play anything than write it out in advance (unlike riffs, where "mathematical thinking" tends to get you farther).

That said I'm no Paul Gilbert, and a lot of the crazier sweeping etc. I think would be difficult/impossible to improvise due to the amount of muscle memory involved in moving between positions, but I can come up with something decent-sounding over, say, just about any Iron Maiden song with no real problem.


----------



## groovemasta (Nov 10, 2012)

Trespass said:


> Early Rosenwinkel and Kreisberg, yes.
> Rosenwinkel is excused because his writing has consistently been fantastic since the beginning, and stylistically he pretty much defined the modern jazz guitar sound as we know it.
> 
> He's taken so many risks over the years like Heartcore, the legato approach, his harmonic subs, and even in performance. His current playing is really engaging, strong, and full of a lot of really thoughtful harmonic color and rhythmic interest.
> ...



I see, the way you worded it made it sound like those kind of players are inferior, while that may be true sometimes I'd consider them 'collage' players as well and enjoy all of them. Lucky you got to meet Kriesberg though 

(when I think of regurgitated licks I think more of smooth jazz)

@ powel maybe try 'deep song'


----------



## Whammy (Nov 10, 2012)

InfinityCollision said:


> What's the difference?



A)Soloists range from pure theory to the point that they decide what scales they want and work it out note for note.
(They plan it out before using theory, not their ears) 

B)Purely aural where every note is visualised in their head. They nearly know what they're going to hit before they do.
(They improvise using only their ears)


----------



## Indigenous (Nov 10, 2012)

Trespass said:


> I am a professional jazz musician (pianist).
> 
> The jazz world is split into two camps. Those that are regurgitating licks, lines and other nonsense in a cookie cutter, collage type approach to playing over changes.
> 
> ...



Every single one of those guys are playing the exact same licks, though. No matter how inventive you are, you aren't really inventing new licks, because it's all been done before. All of those amazing jazz guys play over changes, and they all have a ton of bop vocabulary to use over those changes. I don't think it's two distinctive camps of musicians, I think they're all doing the same thing, but in their own way. I can see where you get the college graduate idea though. A lot of guys just seem to think it's plug and chug when it comes to ii-V licks, and it can sound really repetitive and unoriginal. I just don't think it's fair to separate jazz guys like that, because they essentially all stole lines from each other and worked it into their own playing. Just because Coltrane likes to sideslip, or use melodic minor a lot more than Joe Pass doesn't somehow make him a better player, which it really sounds like you're saying. 

You mentioned Parker playing over the blues, and how he couldn't use the same licks and keep you entertained. That's because he had a shit ton of licks. You can take one lick and turn it into 5 or six different licks easily, and they definitely do not sound the same. I don't know if he is creating new melodies per say, but he's definitely addressing the changes with a monstrous amount of vocabulary. 

Sorry for the rant, I just respectfully disagreed with what you were saying.


----------



## InfinityCollision (Nov 10, 2012)

Whammy said:


> A)Soloists range from pure theory to the point that they decide what scales they want and work it out note for note.
> (They plan it out before using theory, not their ears)
> 
> B)Purely aural where every note is visualised in their head. They nearly know what they're going to hit before they do.
> (They improvise using only their ears)



Again, what's the difference? Theory informs the ear as well as the mind, especially if you pair it with ear training (as you should). Maybe somebody out there does that, but personally I don't have time to meticulously plan these things out in any moderate to high-tempo improv so it's important that I be able to translate the things I hear internally to my instrument with a highly musical result. The only things I'm mentally keeping track of past that are changes and tempo.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 10, 2012)

I think Whammy is just pointing out the two approaches as opposite extremes on the scale: street/ear vs school/theory. In reality, most players fall somwhere between the two extremes.


----------



## Whammy (Nov 10, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I think Whammy is just pointing out the two approaches as opposite extremes on the scale: street/ear vs school/theory. In reality, most players fall somwhere between the two extremes.



Yes exactly  Thank you


----------



## ROB SILVER (Nov 11, 2012)

I don't think that there is a right or wrong about this.

Just different approaches.

My own playing has a sort of middle ground, where there may be "composed sections" that I play note for note, but most time, I jam it a few times until I find something I really like, then I usually play some that's a bit like that each time.

Pure improvisation live can be really exciting, but at the same time, if you have come up with a really interesting and distinctive, then why not play it over and over again?


----------



## Zeetwig (Nov 11, 2012)

There will also be a difference between records and live shows, as some of you have pointed out. Would you claim that it is more common to write solos before recording them when making an album than it is to write solos for live shows (assuming that the player doesn't do both, which is often not true, but for the sake of the argument)? And with 'write' I mean anything from writing the solo note for note to improvising a few runs, picking the best parts and making a solo from them.

I am going to show this thread to my friend tomorrow and then we'll see what he says


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 11, 2012)

I've been thinking about this lately. *Art in music*.

For my recorded music I'll improvise over the section. For me it is *critical* that I record the very first attempt. From this I will develop the ideas, always maintaining the integrity of the first attempt but ensuring that the quality is to my personal standards.

The reason is, most often, my first attempt is very musical. The more I play and become familiar with the section, the more *guitarist* I become... 
_Hey, some sweeping would be good there... 
or some tapping... 
*hours go by while I practice it 'til perfect*
what was I doing again?_ 

Obsession with technicality becomes overt once over familiarity sets in, for me anyway.

I really like live format improvisation, although most metal has themes and motifs that must be set in stone or the aggressive accuracy can be lost. For other genres, creating in the moment is where it is at!
*No other art form has that*. 
Not even dance or other instantaneous physical artform as they usually require some form of premeditation such as props, costume or music.

The question of whether it is really art is not for the artist, but for the audience. 

+1 genuine in the moment improvisation - *Creating content at the speed of thought!*

Stoooopid lick regurgitators  You're doing it wrong and denying your own freedom of expression!!! GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!
*Jazz hands - SMAAASSSSSHHHH!!!!!*


----------



## Overtone (Nov 12, 2012)

Very true! That's more or less why I try to record my first 2-3 interpretations and build a solo from those... most of the time, anyway. The way I look at it is that after a while it's easier to fall back on "old habits", whereas the first few times I have to depend on my ear and what I can come up with in the moment. Though sometimes it is fun to take a different approach, like notating something bar by bar. 

Just another example I remembered for the OP... I read this book about Iron Maiden once and IIRC in their early days Dave Murray was typically improvising while Adrian Smith would work out his licks rather meticulously and use those as his vocabulary.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 12, 2012)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> For me it is *critical* that I record the very first attempt. From this I will develop the ideas, always maintaining the integrity of the first attempt but ensuring that the quality is to my personal standards.
> 
> The reason is, most often, my first attempt is very musical. The more I play and become familiar with the section, the more *guitarist* I become...
> _Hey, some sweeping would be good there... _
> ...


 
I have noticed this in my improv as well. I may not end up using any of the early take(s) in the final recording, but the ideas are definitely the freshest early on, and if I am composing a solo, these early ideas form the basis from I will build a solo.




Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> Stoooopid lick regurgitators  You're doing it wrong and denying your own freedom of expression!!! GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!
> *Jazz hands - SMAAASSSSSHHHH!!!!!*


 
I get your point, Ryan, and prefer true improv myself. But if nothing else, the library of licks approach provides something to fall back on when you are having an off night and need to come up with something, so it does have a place in improv.

From a different angle, I have noticed that licks or technical exercises I practiced years back sometimes subconciously find their way into my improv. In this case I would rather have an interesting melodic idea (lick) show up rather than a boring technical exercise rearing its ugly head.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 12, 2012)

Overtone said:


> Just another example I remembered for the OP... I read this book about Iron Maiden once and IIRC in their early days Dave Murray was typically improvising while Adrian Smith would work out his licks rather meticulously and use those as his vocabulary.


 
Dave's solos do sound like a lick based improv approach to my ear, while Adrian's solos sound composed, so I can go along with this. Having said that, Dave has some *very* *well worn* licks that seem to show up in every other one of his solos.


----------



## Zeetwig (Nov 12, 2012)

Talked to my friends today, and he admitted that for more technical and faster solos you would most likely have to write something and practice is, or have a library of licks that you know very well and know how to combine them very well. The exception would be alt picked runs and scales, and I agree with him on that.

I also told him about the "metal begin more classical/european and rock being more african", and he had too never thought of that, although he said that made sense. He still though that rock and some metal that isn't too fast and too technical, and want to project a feeling different from some metal could benefit from an improvised solo, and I can agree on that. It is always hard to describe feelings with words, but the feeling that I get from listening to metal is a sense of power, might and that everything fits very well, tightness and that everything is perfectly made for the song. Rock provides me with a feeling of completion, fullness, perfection and massiveness. Although the descriptions can be somewhat similar they are very different to me, and an improvised solo would fit better in rock than metal, just like a very thought out and practiced solos would fit better in metal.

So, all in all we both concluded that most people do have to have a library of licks and/or write the solo when playing metal solos (if they are to play a solo that fits with the song) (of course some improvisation can be done, but the more technical parts has to be written and practiced), and that in rock writing and improvising is both equally good. Fast and technical solos have to be written previously to being played, with some exceptions. Also, he withdrew his comment that "shred is false" as that was just something he said "in the heat of the discussion". He, just like me, thinks that one should always respect other peoples music (both made and what they like to listen to), as long as they respect yours.


----------



## Devyn Eclipse Nav (Nov 12, 2012)

I say, go with what the song calls for. If you feel the song needs a solo that is consistent from time to time, do that. But, sometimes a guitar solo that's improvised sounds better. It's all personal preference, there's no right way to do it.

Many guitarists will record multiple improvised solos in the studio, and amalgamate them all into one really good solo at the end. I know for a fact that Herman Li and Steve Vai do this, which is why it takes them so long to record their solos


----------



## skarz (Dec 12, 2012)

It mostly depends of the cultural background of the musician, I think.
In my country (Madagascar), improvisation is part of the musical culture, i.e traditional music work as theme-->response + variation (all variation are improvised). As a result even guitar based pop song got whole segment of the song (and not only solo) where all musicians improvise (we call it a folaka).
For exemple if you have already see D'gary (malagasy guitarist) live, every show is different as the improvised part is a great part of his playing.



As a result the public here measure the musicianship during the improvised part (basically, if you cannot improvise, you don't know how to play). 
But as I said it's cultural. At a personal level, I think you can work your solo for recording but need to improvise during live show. If not your public just buy records and don't really need to see you live.


----------



## zakatak9389 (Dec 12, 2012)

ElRay said:


> One example: Rush
> 
> It's very common for Alex to lay-down three or four tracks worth of semi-improvisational ideas for each solo, and then he & Geddy create the solo, on the editing board, from bits & pieces and then Alex learns the "created" solo.
> 
> ...



This is exactly what I do and it works great


----------

