# Am I the only one who finds rhythm way harder than lead?



## troyguitar (Oct 22, 2011)

It seems like most people look at lead playing as something "better" or "more advanced" players do, but it seems like the opposite to me. Playing leads I only have to bother with playing one note at a time rather than deciding on an entire chord and then contorting my hand quickly enough to play it. Thoughts?

(obviously in a lot of metal even the rhythm playing never involves playing more than one note at a time or maybe a power chord, but let's ignore that)

I started playing guitar inspired by guys like Jason Becker and have never put much time or effort into playing any chords at all. To this day I can just about nail "Altitudes" but would struggle through Tom Petty's "Free Fallin'"


----------



## that short guy (Oct 22, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> To this day I can just about nail "Altitudes" but would struggle through Tom Petty's "Free Fallin'"


 
This is something that I'm finding to occure more and more with a lot of players. It seems like a lot of people wanted to run before they could walk and skipped learning how to play good rhythm. Everyone wanted to be able to be the guy that could solo like there was no tomorrow but they forgot about what happens when they're not playing lead.


----------



## troyguitar (Oct 22, 2011)

They're entirely different skills though, completely unrelated to each other. It's not running before you walk, more like swimming before you ride a bike.


----------



## that short guy (Oct 22, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> They're entirely different skills though, completely unrelated to each other. It's not running before you walk, more like swimming before you ride a bike.


 
It might be the way I learned to play, but to me they're the exact same. That being said I hate it when people, like you said in the original post, just use power chords. I love the way a guitar sounds when it's got every string ringing with a complex voicing. For me I use the exact same tech. to play rhythm that I do to play lead.


----------



## SirMyghin (Oct 22, 2011)

I don't separate them either, I think it is more people haven't botherred to build up a solid rhythmic foundation. It is all just part of playing guitar. I find rhythm dead simple, but then again, I am a bassist (who tends to take after guys like Clarke and Hamm albeit).


----------



## troyguitar (Oct 23, 2011)

Whereas I find bass more similar to lead guitar - you generally only play one note at a time.

Chords are fucking hard, that's why I have a keyboard player and another guitar player


----------



## drgamble (Oct 23, 2011)

This is why it is important for guitar players to expand their horizons and study different types of music. I have always been one to listen to and play many different styles of music. If you just try to stick to one genre or style of playing. It's what seperates a good guitar player from a great guitar player. Sounds to me like you should switch from sweep arpeggios to some country, classical, blues type of stuff and and work on chords and soloing within chords.


----------



## Solodini (Oct 23, 2011)

I agree with you, Troy. It's why I always teach single note stuff first. Starting with chords sounds counter-intuitive to me. Why teach someone to do multiple things at once when you haven't taught them to use/do the individual things yet? Chords are often undervalued, which is why you find so many people sticking with the chords which came with the guitar, rather than voicings which fit together. Playing shred not be easier than rhythm guitar, as you say, they're slightly different disciplines, one relying on ability to vary actions quickly, the other relying often on endurance, but certainly, I'd say simple melodic work is easier than open chord strummy stuff. At least for a beginner.


----------



## Hollowway (Oct 23, 2011)

I thought lead was harder, but I generally like really involved rhythm stuff anyway. No Free Fallin' for me!  I also agree that they're very different things, and should both be practiced, but I think that the term "rhythm virtuoso" doesn't exist for a reason. Good rhythm playing is not as technically difficult as fancy shredding, but it is arguably more musically difficult. I played in a bad that covered a lot of Chili Peppers tunes, and it took a little while to get that funky rhythm down, because I was so used to playing rock stuff. And I took jazz lessons to get complex chording down just to open my mind up a bit for composing.


----------



## Alimination (Oct 23, 2011)

This topic reminded me of this video



maybe practice rhythm on your leads hehe


----------



## SirMyghin (Oct 23, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> Whereas I find bass more similar to lead guitar - you generally only play one note at a time.
> 
> Chords are fucking hard, that's why I have a keyboard player and another guitar player



Chords aren't hard, just take all your shred arpeggios and make them ring at once  I don't agree with you on bass at all, as I tend to think in chords (and even play them!). I don't find single note or multiple notes to ever be the issue though, it is the thought approach, which is seemless. It is all chord thones and non chord tones. Maybe you just need to build up that internal metronome and everything will click together.


----------



## troyguitar (Oct 23, 2011)

Hollowway said:


> I think that the term "rhythm virtuoso" doesn't exist for a reason. Good rhythm playing is not as technically difficult as fancy shredding, but it is arguably more musically difficult.



I'd disagree, there's no reason one couldn't play something like 16th note chords (quadruple stops? ) at 220bpm except for it just being insanely difficult and hard for anyone to follow.

I perhaps should have used "chords" and "single notes" in place of rhythm and lead as that's what I actually had in mind.

It just seems infinitely easier (or maybe 2-7x easier depending on how many notes are in the chord you happen to play ) when you're playing along to see A7 on the chart and think 'OK I've got 4 safe notes to emphasize sometime in this measure, guess I'll hit a C# now with one finger and go from there' versus 'I need to hit all 4 of these notes at the same time, let's decide on an inversion and set up my whole hand in the time it takes the soloist to move one finger' - it just seems like a simple mathematical thing to me, playing 2-7 notes at a time versus just one is much more difficult.

I think I might be a closet sax player


----------



## SirMyghin (Oct 23, 2011)

Hollowway said:


> , but I think that the term "rhythm virtuoso" doesn't exist for a reason..



It has to do with the fact being a virtuoso involves playing with virtuosity, which is defined as an individual who possesses outstanding technical ability. A term thrown around all too commonly nowadays, as outstanding involves being gauged against what is around, and with the meriad of shredding guitarists, that is probably not enough to get you there.


----------



## brutalwizard (Oct 23, 2011)

i was very much like this until school forced me to voice the most outrageous chords in jazzband, i was so worried about shredding that i wasnt able to tunes that made any sense to anybody, and acoustic guitars made no sense to me back then.


----------



## Adari (Oct 23, 2011)

Hollowway said:


> I think that the term "rhythm virtuoso" doesn't exist for a reason.


I've always considered Marten Hagstrom to be a "rhythm virtuoso". Here's my stance on this whole topic:

Anyone who's saying "rhythm is harder because you're playing chords, not single notes" is not an accomplished lead player. If you spend some time studying Frank Gambale and Larry Carlton, you'll realise the relationship between lead passages and the underlying chord sequences and how the two are intrinsically linked. The CAGED system demonstrates this very clearly. If you learn to build all your chords and arpeggios from harmonised scales, the difference between rhythm and lead becomes very blurred.


----------



## troyguitar (Oct 23, 2011)

Adari said:


> Here's my stance on this whole topic:
> 
> Anyone who's saying "rhythm is harder because you're playing chords, not single notes" is not an accomplished lead player. If you spend some time studying Frank Gambale and Larry Carlton, you'll realise the relationship between lead passages and the underlying chord sequences and how the two are intrinsically linked. The CAGED system demonstrates this very clearly. If you learn to build all your chords and arpeggios from harmonised scales, the difference between rhythm and lead becomes very blurred.



I disagree entirely. There's a huge difference between knowing the things you're talking about and actually playing them. You can know exactly what's going on with all of the chords without actually being able to play them.

You're essentially asserting that a sax player cannot be an accomplished soloist unless he learns how to comp on guitar/piano/whatever when all he needs is the musical knowledge of the chords, not any physical ability to play them.


----------



## Shi7Disc0 (Oct 23, 2011)

There are alot of players who put emphasis on each style or are better at one over the other. 

I find lead difficult because I like keeping the pulse of the band, and my runs have become monotonous to me. 

I feel more expressive being able to build different inversion variations and rhythms. 

However, eventually when I do get better at lead playing I will approach it with Adam Nitti's technique of chordal improvisation. Very much to learn from this one video.


----------



## SirMyghin (Oct 23, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> You're essentially asserting that a sax player cannot be an accomplished soloist unless he learns how to comp on guitar/piano/whatever when all he needs is the musical knowledge of the chords, not any physical ability to play them.



No he isn't, he is saying that knowledge of what is going on is universal and vital. Even sax players should know how to harmonize scales. Just because you aren't playing all the notes in unison, doesn't mean you don't need em.


----------



## troyguitar (Oct 23, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> No he isn't, he is saying that knowledge of what is going on is universal and vital. Even sax players should know how to harmonize scales. Just because you aren't playing all the notes in unison, doesn't mean you don't need em.



Right, but he said nothing of knowledge. He was implying that playing single notes somehow means that you don't know what a chord is or how to construct it, etc. As if by thinking that one note is easier to play than 2-7 I've somehow decided not to learn anything about music...

Are you guys really arguing that it's not harder to play 2-7 notes at once than just one?


----------



## SirMyghin (Oct 23, 2011)

A I would never play a 7 note chord, and B, yes. I transition seemlessly between chords and single notes, I like to use it for contrast. For example, I have a part of a piece in 3 bar segments, the first bar on guitar is a chord, 2nd an arpeggio, 3rd lead/melody explicitly. The bass is doing that exact thing backward, often in opposite directions. I really do not separate the 2 in the least. 

The probably is your argument (which you feel vehemently about) is hinged on a singular experience, despite what many others here are chiming in. Chords and moving around in chords really isn't that difficult. More notes =/= harder, the problem is more you have built a division mentally, instead of looking at playing as a whole. Everything has rhythmic value, just as it can have melodic or harmonic value, so it is all the same thing. I generally don't play 'texturally', in the free of rhythm sense.


----------



## troyguitar (Oct 23, 2011)

I'm going to make a specific example as I guess I'm still not being clear enough (or you're a really AMAZING chord player or horrible single-note player )

Are you seriously arguing that measure 1 and measure 2 are of equal difficulty?


----------



## CTID (Oct 23, 2011)

Maybe it's because I played drums for about 4 years before I started on guitar, but I already had a pretty solid concept of rhythm and time when I started playing guitar, and building up my chops was really the only thing I had to worry about. I find lead a lot harder to do than rhythm because of that. Chords aren't the first thing I learned by any means because when I first started, I, like many others, I imagine, wanted to be the guitarist who shredded around doing 5-string sweeps all the time like a guitar god.

But then, I was 15.

I grew up, and realized that you won't become a _truly_ great musician if you don't learn the basics before you start on the advanced techniques. I joined a band and have learned a TON of things about music theory and other related subjects from the band's lead guitarist, who's been playing for about twice as long as I have. After playing guitar for about a year and a half to maybe 2 years, I realized that chords and playing in key is one of the main foundations of playing and that you branch out leads and other ways of playing from there, and that has helped me immensely.

As for playing chords and you finding it difficult, it's just a matter of practice, sure, I found it difficult to switch chords seamlessly, but after practicing for a while, it's second nature to me. I can do it with literally no trouble at all.


EDIT: Assuming you can switch chords properly, that's not too difficult. Also, 120 bpm isn't terribly fast, anyway.


----------



## Leuchty (Oct 23, 2011)

I find lead playing harder because rhythm just interests me more and is more fun to play.

It gets to the point where I have to force myself to practice/learn lead.

I am not a very accomplished lead player at all.


----------



## SirMyghin (Oct 23, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> I'm going to make a specific example as I guess I'm still not being clear enough (or you're a really AMAZING chord player or horrible single-note player )
> 
> Are you seriously arguing that measure 1 and measure 2 are of equal difficulty?



No, but your example is a hyperbole. When do you expect to see that happen on guitar? Movement between most of those chords is minimal though.


----------



## troyguitar (Oct 23, 2011)

That's not hyperbole it's an apples to apples comparison. That lead line is relatively easy but the chordal part, which is exactly the same except requires playing more than one note at a time, is fucking insane. Chords are harder to play, that's why most people play simpler parts with chords than they do with single notes.


----------



## CTID (Oct 23, 2011)

True, but it also typically sounds odd, or bad to switch between chords that quickly, which why a chord will usually continue for at least a quarter note, switching that quickly is difficult, but it's also completely impractical to do.


----------



## SirMyghin (Oct 23, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> That's not hyperbole it's an apples to apples comparison. That lead line is relatively easy but the chordal part, which is exactly the same except requires playing more than one note at a time, is fucking insane. Chords are harder to play, that's why most people play simpler parts with chords than they do with single notes.



It is a hyperbole as it stands outside of what would be common use, unless ofcourse you are taking up piano. Choosing the exception not the rule does not serve to validate your point. In contrast one could choose many examples containing a long chord with some guy wanking over top of it and say 'see leads are harder'. It doesn't get you anywhere. Most of the movement in your example is 1 semitone up or down, F's and C's (with changing quality) , seguing to some A and B and so forth. It is plenty doable either way, as the chords are voiced to facilitate it. It could; however, be further simplified as there are doubled roots in there, and strengthening chords moving that quickly is not really necessary, infact they may flow better if left less stable.

It could also be pointed out that none of the example you posted is 'rhythm' as it is all lead containing the melody. The division of 'rhythm = chords and single notes = leads' is a poor one.


----------



## AcousticMinja (Oct 23, 2011)

I find it the opposite...but that's just how I started playing. I did chords, I dropped tuned, then I just started messing around with weird chords, bigger chords, stretches, etc. Now I use open tunings because I love chords and rhythm so much. But at the same time, I emphasize on my right hand more so than on my left. I like leads, but I'm not a solo/shred kind of guy.


----------



## Solodini (Oct 24, 2011)

Troy's specific example may be hyperbole but think of a part by someone like James Taylor which is definitely a rhythm part and will stick on one chord for at least a beat, if not a bar but due to subtle changes and leads in to the next chord, you need to position your fingers completely differently to reach that one high note which leads back down into the next chord. 

In that instance, you may be playing one chord for a whole bar and it may not sound obscure or complicated but requires fast, smooth changes between shapes and keeping your brain in gear to separate the sound of a chord which sounds largely the same as the last and the next from an entirely different mechanical approach.


----------



## AxeHappy (Oct 24, 2011)

Write harder to play leads. Problem solved!

Neither is harder, it all depends what you want to do with it. 

I personally find leads harder in my band, because I tend to write simple rhythms with a nice easy to sing catch melody and then for the solo I shove the fact that I didn't have any friends in high school and practised to much down everybody's throat. And I shove the fact that I don't get to practise as much as much as I'd like anymore down my throat.


----------



## Captain_Awesome (Nov 12, 2011)

It depends what you're playing tbh. I personally would find playing a shred solo easier than learning a complex rhythm part, but I've conditioned myself that way by practicing a lot of scales and arpeggios. At the same time though, chords aren't a problem for me, I'm along time classical player where 'interesting' chords are a key factor to the music. 
I thik it all just depends on the complexity of the music involved and whether you're reading it off a sheet, because that will be inevitably slower than if you wrote it yourself.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Nov 12, 2011)

Playing chords is easy (to an extent), it's using them in interesting ways that is usually the difficulty.

Same with leads/solos easy to play. hard to make something good out of it, and both these come from someone who knows their theory rather well and plays with feeling.


----------



## Riggy (Nov 12, 2011)

I'm not an amazing rhythm player (not that I'm claiming to be an amazing lead player either, but it's definitely my stronger of the two.) I wouldn't say I was bad, just not as tight as I could be all the time. 

It's something I should probably sit down and practice more with a metronome and just kill myself with. I've always preferred more lead based rhythmic stuff anyway, if that makes sense - As opposed to more chordal stuff.


----------

