Do you prefer improvised solos in non-jazz music?

[CyberGene]

In jazz, solos are always improvised, or it wouldn’t be jazz. How about other styles, e.g. rock, pop, etc.?

As a listener, do you prefer hearing the solos note for note as you know them from the studio album?

 

As a performer, do you compose fixed pre-cooked solos for your music?

[yannis D]

Each musician should do their own thing

If not what's the use of a live band instead of a dj or karaoke? 

[PianoMan51]

In a rock band in the early 70s we distinguished between solos (pre-determined melodic passage which is part of the song) and rides (as in: take an improvisational ride while the rest of the band supports you). 
 

I’ve never come across that again. Charts will label ‘solo’ for both written out parts and improvised sections. 
 

But maybe onto your real question…

 

What are the signature licks that must be played versus what is okay to make up as we go? 
 

There ain’t no answers. ‘Your’ answer as a player defines your musical aesthetic.

 

Compare Yes playing the same note for note song for 50 years running, vs Herbie Hancock playing Both Sides Now in the Joni Letters.

[KuruPrionz]

I've played a lot of gigs, filled a lot of dance floors. 45 years worth, more or less. 

 

I can't count the times as a sideman that I was suddenly playing a song I'd never heard before. Hard to play a signature lick you haven't heard, no?

 

Even more often, the times where the band that was playing simply did not have the instrumentation to "replicate" the original tune to any realistic level.

Try playing all the great Motown hits in a band with bass, drums, guitar, keyboard and 2 male singers. We never sounded "just like the record" but we always filled the dance floor. 

 

If we are there for the audience (and honestly, for how much alcohol the audience consumes which is what drives employment as a bar band musician), they want to hear the chorus of the song (they may even sing along to that part) and they want a solid groove so they can shake their ass. That's it.

 

The signature licks are an important value-added feature but not paramount. The only real reason to learn any other parts note for note is because YOU want to do that. Nobody else that matters will care, at all. Possible exception being if you try to play just like the record and fail, everybody will notice that but nobody likes it. It won't stop the dancing though... 

[stoken6]

I can accept both sides. I love the excitement of an "of-the-moment" improvised solo, but also accept that a well-crafted line can be played as written. Case in point is Allan Holdsworth's guitar "feature" (written solo?) from Level 42's Lessons In Love.

 

Cheers, Mike.

[ElmerJFudd]

It depends on the song.  Some tunes and their solo sections are clearly intended to be improvised.    But many tunes have thoughtfully composed, hummable, memorable solos that are as recognizable as the singer’s lines.  

[CyberGene]

OK, here’s an example. If you are listening to Another Brick in the Wall, do you expect to hear that iconic guitar solo note for note as in the album? 😀

[Reezekeys]

I guess I'm a "jazz guy" but I've played plenty of rock, funk, r&b, etc. and of course have done weddings playing anything from polkas to La Macarena and even an occasional Chicken Dance. Years ago I was playing a gig and the leader called "Good Lovin'", and when it came time for the organ solo, jazz guy me let loose - not with outside "jazz" chords; stylistically it was in the pocket, but it wasn't THE solo from the record - it was my own improvisation. I look back at that and cringe! I've always seen solos as an opportunity to make a personal statement, but sometimes there are songs with solos so embedded into the fabric of the tune that they're as much part of the composition as the verse & chorus melodies. Good Lovin' is, imo (and probably everyone else's opinion!), one of those songs.

 

As far as those that "pre-plan" a solo, i.e. composed vs improvised, I suppose that's cool if you're not comfortable improvising. I've never done that and might look a little sideways at someone doing it playing pure jazz, but in the end we want the music to sound good - so do what ya gotta do!

[KuruPrionz]

5 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

OK, here’s an example. If you are listening to Another Brick in the Wall, do you expect to hear that iconic guitar solo note for note as in the album? 😀

I would expect the guitarist (assuming there is one) to play "Gilmour-ish", melodic and open, making good use of the notes and not going "outside". If they start shredding, they've blown it. 

If you play more or less the first five notes of the solo you've got it well under control. The audience may have one or two people in it who recognize that the solo was not identical to the original. They may or may not care but it doesn't matter in the slightest in the context of the evening. 

 

For the most part, people do not go to bars to judge the band on playing songs note-for-note, they go there to have fun. If the band is fun then they've done their job. 

It's really very simple, as musicians we tend to over-complicate and inflict our own reality on the situation but it doesn't mean anything if people are dancing, smiling and singing along. 

[Mike Davis]

There are signatures and hooks, there are solo sections that are open for anything, and occasionally there’s a solo that is a fully formed composition within the song. Much of Steve Howe’s work with YES, and some of Steve Hackett’s parts with early Genesis are unimprovableupon. IMO 🙂

[Threadslayer]

Anyone have a rough estimate of how many times this topic has been discussed on this forum?

[surfergirl]

I'm in transition to a 2 guitar/vocalist duo manly for busking, but could do coffee shops also. 

Since about half of our set list is 50s/60s girl groups we are having to do a lot of improvising. 

[HSS]

6 minutes ago, Threadslayer said:

Anyone have a rough estimate of how many times this topic has been discussed on this forum?

42, which Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says is the answer to everything. 

[16251]

The middle ground. The one that started as improv, but then the soloist plays the perfect solo and it becomes part of song.

[Bobbo Fett]

Some solos aren't solos, but rather "parts". Things like Good Lovin' I really try to stay as close as possible to the original, also things like the solo in The Wanderer when I'm playing tenor. Other things, like Sweet Home Amabama I will start with the opening lick and develop my own ideas from there, staying close to the style. (I can't play the whole thing anyway). Same with things like Green Onions....

[timwat]

No, I generally do not prefer improvised solos in pop / rock tunes.

 

Of course it depends on the tune, but IMHO very well-known (too familiar?) tunes like Don't Stop Believing benefit from copping the solo note-for-note. Same with at least the first 8 measures of the solo in Comfortably Numb.

 

Depends on genre, lasting popularity, etc. as noted above.

 

A bigger reason overall, however, which also includes jazz: Improvisation is composition without prior preparation or editing. This usually benefits from players with experience, musical taste, and ability to build a story with good use of tension / release, repetition, use of recurring motif, etc. And some players are great storytellers - great soloists.

 

But a lot of folks I've heard aren't. License to "do my own thing" many times is an excuse for a wank-fest with little to no regard for the audience, or even other members of the band. The song that the audience was enjoying becomes a bad version of a jam band for 64 measures, and the resonance / attachment they were feeling of being "on the band's side" is replaced by "when are they going to get back to playing the song I love?"

 

And yes, this is now maybe #43 times we've discussed here on the forum, but even so I'm guessing some of us will benefit from thinking about this all over again.

[AnotherScott]

Reiterating what others have said... it depends. Sometimes the whole solo exact, sometimes just the opening and/or signature riffs, sometimes nothing at all from the original, depending on the song. But even when you're not playing what was on the record, usually stick with the same style/approach... something the original player might have played, even if it isn't what he actually played.

[EricBarker]

I’ve always believed it was more musicians and the music industry at large that fretted over “getting it exact”. Most audiences don’t care, if you give them a good time, and remind them somewhat of the original, you’ve done your job. It’s definitely good practice to identify the signature hooks and go one to the other. But what you do between them is fair game.

 

Take the fiddle solo in Baba O’Riley (which all us keyboardists eventually end up playing). There’s a lot of killer hooks in there, but also a lot of filler connecting tissue. I approach it like an island archipelago… play the hook, dive in and improvise for a bit, come up and play the next, and so on.

 

PS: that solo is fantastic on Seaboard

[GovernorSilver]

Improvised soloing is also expected in blues, Indian classical, Persian classical, and some other genres outside of jazz.

 

Improvised soloing in rock could be ok if it's not the same blues-rock lick executed over and over like the infamous "Freebird" outtro.

[AROIOS]

Improvisation, regardless of style, is like (male) masturbation, perfectly fine and enjoyable for oneself and a small number of collaborators and spectators. For most others, instead of being adventurous and intelligent as the performer might narcissistically believe, it's usually boring and often cringe-worthy.
 

6 hours ago, CyberGene said:

...
As a performer, do you compose fixed pre-cooked solos for your music?
...

Absolutely, I'll choose a well "pre-cooked" solo by a 3rd rate player over an improvised one by a 1st rate player every single time.

[EricBarker]

…yet there are whole forms of folk music around the world based on improvisation, so I think that’s a huge over-generalization.

[AnotherScott]

Improv isn't merely fun, and hopefully at least sometimes good... it's also a great time-saver for the lazy.

[Legatoboy]

'Improvised/ unless the solo went to a recording but those were usually in  Blues or Rock contexts ....  

For my solo piano gigs usually over Jazz standards.... always improvised. 

 

Didn't spend all those years studying jazz improvisation and learning how to develop an improvised line for naught ... that helped with other music also including non improvised.... everything in music,  if you get deep enough with it  sort of touch's everything else eventually ....  

 

good question, but non-improvised is fine.,,,  there is a place/room enough in the world for everything , just don't call it 'improvised' even if it sounds so - because - it's not!  Improvised rules have their own physics ...   and often require a deeper personal and technical connection to rhythm and harmonic knowledge ... 

 

It's all good though!  

[CowboyNQ]

In a rock/pop context, if it’s a solo I know well and like, I prefer to hear it played live as it’s been played on the original recordings.

 

I think of great solos as mini compositions, many of which have been carefully designed and considered by the artist.

 

As a performer - I very rarely improvise.  Even back when I was playing originals I’d usually have the solo already worked out prior to playing live. 
 

Of course context is everything with these sort of discussions.  Some scenarios lend themselves to improvisation more readily than others.

 

 

[El Lobo]

I love improvising solos in old rock/blues tunes. Even with my limited chops, I think I can construct a good solo. I've even been told this by a very good musician who I respect. For me, that's the main fun of playing live -- that, and seeing the crowd dance and have fun. Yeah, I play signature lines if they're there. But if the recorded solo is classic and well-known, I tend to stay away from that or as others have said, play the first notes of the classic solo then take it from there. If I didn't get to play improvised solos, I wouldn't play in that band. 

[jazzpiano88]

If the solo is iconic (Reeze pretty much defined the term with his "Good Lovin" organ solo example), you gotta play it.

 

I think if there were one band that exemplifies this on both keyboard and guitar, it would be Boston.  

Those guitar and organ solos are a requirement.

 

Now if it's just droning on and on like an annoying gnat like on "Light my Fire", have at it.  Anything would be an improvement.

[MathOfInsects]

Some solos are just part of the song--like the little synth thing in "Shut Up and Dance With Me." Some seem more circumstantial--like maybe the piano solo in Moondance.

 

I think a big part depends on how close to the original the rest of what you are doing is. If you're already taking liberties, those same liberties might be expected in solos--and particularly if you're treating the solos differently from how the song did (by giving multiple ones, for example, or including more time or parts of the song). If your cover is a pretty direct match to the original, then match the solo too. It's jarring not to. If instead you're "playing the chart"--getting the structure right but interpreting it your own way--it might even feel weird to suddenly lock down into some pre-written solo from the original version. Though quoting it would definitely still be on the table.

[HSS]

7 hours ago, timwat said:

License to "do my own thing" many times is an excuse for a wank-fest with little to no regard for the audience, or even other members of the band.

"Wankfest" would be a great name for a couple of the bands I've played in. 🤣

[Tusker]

Most of the time, I enjoy hearing (or performing) an improvised solo. Alternatively, I love a beautifully through-composed solo like many of Tony Banks' solos.

 

As you keep soloing in a particular song over multiple performances, you often center on particular techniques, modes or idioms, so a solo that is improvised can become more like a solo that is through composed. (See Chick Corea's "Myth of improvisation" article on this subject.)

[KuruPrionz]

Just now, Tusker said:

Most of the time, I enjoy hearing (or performing) an improvised solo. Alternatively, I love a beautifully through-composed solo like many of Tony Banks' solos.

 

As you keep soloing in a particular song over multiple performances, you often center on particular techniques, modes or idioms, so a solo that is improvised can become more like a solo that is through composed. (See Chick Corea's "Myth of improvisation" article on this subject.)

Yes, playing the same song allows me to improvise my way to a more or less composition. I love that. Most solo interludes I've taken have not been long. Over the years I've developed a variety of styles, rock, metal, country, blues, acoustic folk, reggae etc. All the popular American music styles except jazz, although I can play "jazzy" which is not quite the same thing, much less of a deep dive.