Solos??...what solos??........

aubs1

Ok, so my wife brings me a present...............NOOOO!!!!.........not another guitar...........or amp..........or pedal........
Just a BluRay DVD............"U2 360deg"-live at the Rose Bowl...........awesome........ :yup:

And for the first time ever, I'm thinking......(having read another thread here: "Best documented solos........"etc etc etc...) Some of the world's BEST, longest lasting, most awesome live bands, (at least in my opinion) ......DON'T PLAY SOLOS........ so here are just two I can think of, off-hand........:

U2, and Sting and The Police,......... can you name a few more?

NorioDS

Collective Soul are awesome and seldom play solos. The few they do play are breath-taking.

Muse also don't have too many solos. And their music is amazing.

Seether only started adding solos once they went to the US and only coz they were told to.

Ray

Beatles? Stones? Anyway, the gods made guitars to be a backing for a kazoo or a harmonica or something hey?

aubs1

Ray wrote: Beatles? Stones? Anyway, the gods made to be a backing for a kazoo or a harmonica or something hey?

The Beatles did solos in most songs, Ray, remember they even used guys like Clapton-("While my guitar gently weeps"), to do solos.

But the Stones, (still one of my fav bands)....??........solos? ..hahaha.....you see why Elton John called them "The world's best 3 chord band" ?

Gearhead

I beg to differ. Stones live sound just a bit like there are no solos. Keef and Ron both play half-lead half-rhythm right through each other. They do however leave each other just enough space so you can hear the amazingly spot-on guitar work.

Wizard

Aubs1 wrote: .... so here are just two I can think of, off-hand........:
U2, and Sting and The Police,......... can you name a few more?

You get three kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't ...

Bob-Dubery

Aubs1 wrote:
Ray wrote: Beatles? Stones? Anyway, the gods made to be a backing for a kazoo or a harmonica or something hey?
The Beatles did solos in most songs, Ray, remember they even used guys like Clapton-("While my guitar gently weeps"), to do solos.

But the Stones, (still one of my fav bands)....??........solos? ..hahaha.....you see why Elton John called them "The world's best 3 chord band" ?

The Stones had solos. In the Mick Taylor era they even had LONG solos. However I do think they're not really about solos.

You mentioned Sting. Certainly early on in his post-Police career his live bands played a lot of extended solos, though Sting himself didn't.

Some acts are different live than they are on record. In another thread I mentioned seeing Springsteen playing and Nils Lofgren taking an amazing solo. Indeed I remember being struck by how much more soloing there was live than on the records. Maybe not integral to the songs, but it was still there.

U2 are an interesting example. The Edge gets his moments in the spotlight, but they're not solos as such things are commonly understood but riffs and grooves.

Clapton guesting on While My Guitar Gently Weeps was a bit of an oddity. Mostly the Beatles did their own solos. A number of them by Paul, and even John got in on the act every now and then (he plays the guitars solos on "Get Back").

In the late 70s and early 80s there was a bit of a backlash against the excesses of prog rock, and I think that acts that emerged then would have concentrated more on ensemble playing than lots of solos. U2 would, I think, fit in there. Early on they bought into the punk ethos. "New Wave" artists like Joe Jackson and Elvis Costello tended to be light on solos, though not eschewing them completely.

I'm not sure where "solos" begin. Think of the Wyndham Hill stuff, Will Ackerman and the like, where the playing was complex and there were a lot of pieces that were, from one perspective, just extended instrumental passages. I think instrumental music is where it starts to break down - especially solo instrumental music.

Ray

Ja I'm wrong. Just been listening to these two bands quite a bit lately and for me it's never like the solo is the focal point.

singemonkey

Yeah. Come on people. Mick Taylor's one of my favourite guitar players of all time. In the period in which the Stones were at their absolute peak, he and Keith used to trade guitar extended guitar solos on about half their set. Songs like Midnight Rambler, and Sympathy for the Devil would easily go on ten mins or more. But never boring, because Mick would burn through those solos. Pure genius.

Get a copy of 1968's Get Yer YaYa's out and see why the announcer cannot be accused of hyperbole when he says, "The greatest rock 'n roll band in the world, The Rolling Stones."

Ray

Hell, I'm truly sorry. Was also listening to the end part of Cant you Hear Me Knocking earlier and ag what can I say I dont ever listen to the solos.

vic

When last have you guys listened to Something (The Beatles) ? In there is an example of a solo that is an integral part of the song ie. without that beautiful solo the song would have been very average imo.

Bob-Dubery

Aubs1 wrote: Ok, so my wife brings me a present...............NOOOO!!!!.........not another guitar...........or amp..........or pedal........

I weep for you Aubs. And you know, I have been so impressed with your contributions to this forum that next time your Missus brings home yet another guitar I will, out of my admiration for you, you understand, take it for you. After a discrete interval of course - one doesn't want to make too much fuss of getting read of an unwanted present.

aubs1

Wizard wrote:
Aubs1 wrote: .... so here are just two I can think of, off-hand........:
U2, and Sting and The Police,......... can you name a few more?
You get three kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't ...

Hahaha Wizard........U2 = 1 band, and Sting and The Police= 1 band! therefore, 2 bands........

singemonkey wrote: ............... "The greatest rock 'n roll band in the world, The Rolling Stones."

I agree!!!!! My comment about the Stones was T-I-C........

@ Bob, your in-depth knowledge of what's what, and who's who, always astounds me........ ?

vic wrote: When last have you guys listened to Something (The Beatles) ? In there is an example of a solo that is an integral part of the song ie. without that beautiful solo the song would have been very average imo.

Yep, The Beatles did awesome solos.....

aubs1

X-rated Bob wrote:
Aubs1 wrote: Ok, so my wife brings me a present...............NOOOO!!!!.........not another guitar...........or amp..........or pedal........
I weep for you Aubs. And you know, I have been so impressed with your contributions to this forum that next time your Missus brings home yet another guitar I will, out of my admiration for you, you understand, take it for you. After a discrete interval of course - one doesn't want to make too much fuss of getting read of an unwanted present.

LOL...........say what??....... ?

singemonkey

There certainly are a lot of great songs without guitar solos - or any kind of solos - naturally. A guitar solo's only a break to bring some variety to a tune in most pop type songs that rely on the vocal. It's just that some kinds of music - Jazz, surf, classical, rock instrumental - are predominantly instrumental. In those styles the instruments are the voices.

And then in styles like electric blues, classic rock, and metal, there's a blend of instrumental and vocal driven music. So I don't think we're going to find any common trends here like "songs without solos = better." What most of us know though, is that solos can be inappropriate, or just plain boring, and actually detract from a song. People shouldn't just have them because they're "supposed" to.

Seventhson

I love solos. There is nothing better to have a build up to a really awesome solo.

Must be bec I am a thrash metal dude :? ?

Renesongs

Hahaha Wizard........U2 = 1 band, and Sting and The Police= 1 band! therefore, 2 bands........

Sting has a Solo career that extends way beyond the police and the last time I saw him in concert he ws doing a n intricate classical guitar solo that I would shudder at attempting. U2 I can understand don't take solos because IMO they don't really anybody capable of doing one. As for the Beatles and Rolling Stones all I can say is you haven't listened to much Beatles or Stones. ???

aubs1

Renesongs wrote:
Hahaha Wizard........U2 = 1 band, and Sting and The Police= 1 band! therefore, 2 bands........
Sting has a Solo career that extends way beyond the police and the last time I saw him in concert he ws doing a n intricate classical guitar solo that I would shudder at attempting. U2 I can understand don't take solos because IMO they don't really anybody capable of doing one. As for the Beatles and Rolling Stones all I can say is you haven't listened to much Beatles or Stones. ???

Rene, I was referring to THE POLICE!!!!(while Sting was a member of that band), not Sting as a solo artist. I saw Sting (the solo artist at Sun City, and don't remember them playing solos).

And if you read my posts correctly you will see that I said The Beatles DO play solos.
The Stones too.......all I said, which was tongue-in-cheek, was about what EJ had to say about them. I am an ardent Rolling Stones and Beatles fan.

However, my intention for this thread was not about who can and who can't play solos, it was purely an observation of bands who did not rely on, or play elaborate solos and were/are still awesome.

@Sevethson, the thread was NOT about whether you love, or your favourite solos, rather about bands who don't, or hardly ever do them!

BTW.I love solos too!!!!! PLEASE READ properly guys.

vic

Aubs1 wrote:
Renesongs wrote:
Hahaha Wizard........U2 = 1 band, and Sting and The Police= 1 band! therefore, 2 bands........

Rene, I was referreing to THE POLICE!!!!(while Sting was a member of that band), not Sting as a solo artist. I saw Sting (the solo artist at Sun City, and don't rememeber them playing solos).

And if you read my posts correctly you will see that I said The Beatles DO play solos.
The Stones too.......all I said, which was tongue-in-cheek, was about what EJ had to say about them. I am an ardent Rolling Stones and Beatles fan.

However, my intention for this thread was not about who can and who can't play solos, it was purely an observation of bands who did not rely on, or play elaborate solos and were/are still awesome.

@Sevethson, the thread was NOT about whether you love. or your favourite solos, rather about bands who don't, or hardly ever do them!

BTW.I love solos too!!!!! PLEASE READ properly guys.

Agree Aubs...Beatles and Stones are best remembered for their overall performances rather than for a great solo here and there. They DID however leave us with some great RIFFS on many of their recordings.

Bob-Dubery

You can have good music without a solo ?

There was quite a bit of it in the punk era. Whether that was because they eschewed solos or didn't have the chops for them is very debatable, and either argument may apply to a specific act. I suspected some punks as having more chops than they let on EG Mick Jones of The Clash.

There are bands where the solos, if they have them, are not essential to the musical statement. I'd cite The Band as an example here. Or The Beatles.