Solos vs rhythm

Heath

I agree completely

chris77

Depends on the context and genre. Folks songs dont need a solo, but a metal balad will be empty without one. Ideally they should compliment each other. Bread tastes k@k. Butter tastes k@k. But put the two together...add the topping of your choice and you have a meal. Same with songs. Rythm can be the bread that makes up the base of the song. Then cover it in a buttery solo or two and add the vocals, effects etc. to taste. Too much of any ingredient will spoil it, but get the balance right and you have a winner. (btw - guess what I am having for lunchright now?)

Bob-Dubery

Seventhson wrote: I think people spend to much time worrying about solos, I think rythem is very important for a decent song.

Good rhyhthm guitarists are worth just as much to a band as a good soloist.

Listen to the Stones during the Mick Taylor era - notice how much Keith adds even though he doesn't get the solos.

Or listen to Hendrix when he's NOT taking a solo. He's still working hard, adding colour to the song and SUPPORTING the song. Hendrix was a fab rhythm player.

Squonk

I think guitarists like Jimmy Page and Eric Johnson who combine soloing and rhythm are brilliant. I know there are many others as well.
Carl Verheyen is another good guitarist who switches from rhythm to lead and back again without you noticing.

Seventhson

I agree that solos are important, some people tend to work on the solo more than the rythem. I love solos but if the rythem is not good then I dont like the song.

[deleted]

Yes - something happening in the Chat window yesterday made me think about this issue: that holding down the fort, which sometimes overlaps with what we'd usually call "rhythm", may not necessarily be an easy thing to do. "Rhythm" need not mean just playing a bunch of open-string chords. Nothing like it, in fact. I would class most of what Vai, Satriani, etc do during the verse structures of their compositions as "rhythm", because there are clear solos elsewhere. So no, not insignificant, highly important, and not necessarily easy at all.

Seventhson

Yes slayer does that.

DonovanB

listening to some old Elvis stuff, a guitar solo sometimes consisted of a few chords with a little colour added to them.

deanBailey

I say learn both then slam either or.

I can shred but I think it's stupid if it's to show off a new arpeggio you've just learned by putting it in the next song you write.

You can tell when a guitarist took an exercise and made a solo of it. Or is showing off.

I know guitarists that have started guitar playing for just the solo's and classify a song as 2 things; one with a solo, one without.
True story.

Seventhson

Thats the reason I started I love solos.

vic

How many guys today can play "Suikerbossie" with a lekker "boere strum", without a plectrum, using only the wrist and fingers ? That's rhythm for you.! ?

Banditman

BB King referred to The Edge as the world's best rhythm guitarist. In a similarish vein you could look at Johnny Marr's work with The Smiths: a lead guitarist who added fantastic colour without having to shred arpeggios to make the point.