Guitar Wankers Suck! Vocals Rule!

[michael saulnier]

First let me say that I think I may be the president of the local chapter of the "wankers club" myself... I love lead guitar playing, passionate and risk taking players, and I really don't care if its all too passe... it's what I like to do and listen to. We used to call it "whippin'" and the search for faster and better was a big part of my teenage experience.

 

But I find myself to be moving farther and farther away from the mainstream. The "best new player" thread I started is a great indication of this... If we were talking about the 60's, 70's, even 80's, there would be lots of names on that list. Only 4 or 5 of "today's" players got named.

 

Assuming "wanking" means lots o' lead guitar playing, more and more bands who would have had a "lead player" in them in years past simply don't. And the "masses" don't seem to care much. Give them their Creed and let them be!

 

I recently saw Al DiMeola at a club that seats 300 people, Yngwie's local show was canceled due to lack of attendence, even Eric Johnson's and Jeff Beck's shows were only moderately attended... and they weren't at any of the larger venues in my area.

 

What's a wanker lover to do? Learn to sing "all pretty like"?

 

guitplayer

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

Have you heard the last Frank Gambale disc "Coming to your Senses". That's a guitar album !

 

It is too bad their aren't many guitar solos anymore. Too many songs are under 4 minutes long in order to get radio airplay. I think that has a lot to do with it. Maybe they are a little passe....I know I don't really like Carlos Santana's solos anymore.

[Lee Flier]

Well I agree, I miss really good guitar on modern records.

 

I don't think having a lot of lead guitar is necessarily "wanking". I guess it depends what you mean by "a lot". http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I love guitar solos. I just don't like super LONG guitar solos, and let's face it, most audiences don't care for it much either unless they're really, really stoned. YAWN. And I don't like the kind of solos that just show off how many notes someone can cram into a few bars - although the occasional fast lick adds a nice "splash".

 

There ARE ways to do tasteful guitar solos that still show your skills without being a "wanker" OR having to learn to sing purty vocals. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[clockwirk]

I think that it's actually good that the pendulum has swung away from lead playing for the time being. It forces (or allows) us to develope the other aspects of guitar playing that may have been neglected in the heyday of lead guitar. I know tons of guitarists who absolutely suck at playing rhythm, and they can't do anything creative with it to save their lives. I also think that this shift away from lead guitar has made guitarists explore creativity in part writing and arrangements. Look at radiohead's "ok computer", or coldplay's "parachutes" for example.

 

Guitar solos still exist, but they've taken on a new look. Tom Morrello takes a solo in tons of rage songs and even though he grew up learning to shred, you never hear him descibed as a wanker. His stuff is totally different from anything else people have done or are doing, and even the masses can respect that. I talked with a couple of kids a while back who were telling me about this "awesome" guitar solo he had.

 

Guitar solos have come to be more like writing a part for a song rather than taking a lead break. I think this is great. It makes us listen to the song itself and write/play something that really supports it.

[Tedster]

Although, truly burning solos (be it "wanking" or just tastefully placed stuff) have the power to influence a new generation of guitar players. It was considered "stupid" to play hot lead in the mid to late seventies, when punk was king. Slam out the power chords etc. A lot of kids from that time period had no "guitar heroes"...not like a few years before. All of a sudden it's the "big hair 80s" and solos are cool again. Kids learned how to shred. Then the grungy nineties and soloing became "stupid" again.

 

I think keeping tasteful and challenging solos in the musical mainstream is important to make subsequent generations interested in taking up the axe. I mean, we're not going to be around forever, but the music can be, with the right help.

 

I remember hearing a couple youngsters (mid teens) who were pretty hot blues players. I smiled and thought "The craft is safe...the torch is being passed".

[D. Gauss]

<>

 

i dunno, you have to define "hot". i like short and sweeet and to the point. those cars lead breaks were always great ..and eveyone can sing them!

 

-d. gauss

[strat0124]

I may get flamed, but it's just an opinion, the reason for folks moving away from the Eric Johnsons, Yngwie, etc is because it's just a guitar version of Kenny G. Yeah they are technically brilliant, just rippin and roarin. The only ones of that genre that I ever liked was Mahvinishu Orchestra (spelling?), and the Dixie Dreggs. And to me they really created a more refined and ground breaking work of art, and those that came after sounded like someone trying to do Beatles songs....it just doesn't work as well. To each his or her own.

[Lee Flier]

Clockwirk, I think you nailed it. TOTALLY agree about Radiohead and Rage, there is some MAJORLY provocative guitar playing going on there, and no wanking whatsoever. And Radiohead even has THREE guitar players! I love the guitar playing on OK Computer... well I love just about everything about that album.

 

And yeah d. gauss I agree about solos that are short and sweet. I think my favorite guitar solo ever is still Keith Richards' solo on "Sympathy for the Devil". The song is just grooving along, then Keith comes in and totally slices your head open for like 16 bars and then he's gone. Just a devastating impact. THAT to me is how you make an impression with the guitar!

 

--Lee

[clockwirk]

Even as far as "real" guitar solos go, I'd rather be a lead player now than in the eighties where everybody was taking a solo in every song. Alternative rock and grunge have really gotten us back to feeling our solos and not just peeling off arpeggios and scales. Even as far as tone goes.....I actually learned the guitar in the eighties practicing my chops like crazy. I could play really fast, but my tone was CRAP. Now everyone's getting back to the vintage stuff (I know. some of you never left) and getting more creative with effects and things.

 

Besides, it never hurt a genre to be underground for a little while. The players who actually appreciate the solo as an art form stay with it, and all the imitators drop off cause it's not popular. Then they form the next Matchbox 20/Three Doors Down/Vertical Horizon/Insert The Latest Band Here group until THAT genre is saturated and everyone's sick of it.

 

The solo will come again!! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[not coaster MODERATOR]

Or.....

 

What we've lost is lead guitarists who carefully choreograph their extended solos. After 5 minutes of straight bullet riffs most people zone out. John McGlaughlin helped pioneer this.

 

Contrast this with "Do you Feel" (ala Frampton) where the passages take you on an adventure ride with a new vista around every turn. A little like being on Pirates of the Carribean. Or even the solo on the much simpler long version of "Light my Fire". It's a living and breathing experience.

[michael saulnier]

I realize when I reread my original post that I forgot to make the original point I had when I wrote the title... It actually wasn't meant to be a "where have all the "wankers" gone post...

 

It was Vocals Rule!

 

I mean that vocals are the #1 bottom line for "commercial grade" music. Unless you can generate an interesting vocal part, (notice I did not say GOOD), you're not gonna get much airplay.

 

For example, one of the biggest "knocks" on Eric Johnson is that he attempts to sing... and gets mixed results. It's a shame such a great player is judged that way, but there it is.

 

I think you can be a decent vocalist without being a great singer, I mean Mick Jagger certainly wasn't born with a classically "great" voice, but he's used what he's got to communicate very effectively. I think Hendrix was another one who "couldn't sing" in a classical sense, but was able to use his voice to give himself a unique sound.

 

Even John Lennon always seemed to be displeased with his voice, although his early work with the Beatles is viewed as top notch singing...

 

What about you... do you sing? Are you the "lead" vocalist? Has your singing ability reached the same level as your guitar playing? Do you work on it as hard...

 

Notice there's no "vocalist" forum on this site... what does that mean? That vocalists are too busy making money to waste time posting rants on some music board????

 

#%)%*%$$*!! Vocalists... http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/blackeye/drooling3.gifhttp://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/blackeye/Eyecrazy.gifhttp://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/sarge/SaiyanSmilie_anim.gif

 

guitplayer

[KHAN]

guitplayer said:

>>>For example, one of the biggest "knocks" on Eric Johnson is that he attempts to sing... and gets mixed results. It's a shame such a great player is judged that way, but there it is.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Funny you should mention this today. I was just listening to the first two tracks on Venus Isle, and his voice was just just killing me. I love it. I will admit his voice is not amazing live, but listening to Forty Mile Town, Friends or Bristol Shore I think his voice is Quite beautiful and unique. Some people have expressed a dislike for his guitar tones too.

There is no accounting for taste. http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/blackeye/gmorning.gifhttp://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/blackeye/gmorning.gifhttp://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/blackeye/gmorning.gifhttp://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/blackeye/gmorning.gif

[nrg music]

Khan wrote:

>> Funny you should mention this today. I was just listening to the first two tracks on Venus Isle, and his voice was just just killing me. I love it. I will admit his voice is not amazing live, but listening to Forty Mile Town, Friends or Bristol Shore I think his voice is Quite beautiful and unique. Some people have expressed a dislike for his guitar tones too.

There is no accounting for taste. >>

 

Hey Khan

glad someone else thinks the same way man.... I can't quite understand why anyone would knock his guitar tones though!! By the way how the hell are you and what have you been up to huh?

 

Simon http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Guest]

Damn Lee, I often agree with you but jesus, KEITH RICHARDS IS THE WORST GUITAR PLAYER EVER, PERIOD.

 

I love short, simple and to the point guitar solos but I also still listen to Hendrix. Why does it have to be one way or the other.

 

Did you guys stop listening to Hendrix? I've heard hours of his guitar solos and still reach for his music when I want to sit down and listen to music.

 

If you have to be stoned to enjoy a long guitar solo you're either not listening or listening to the wrong player.

 

I'm not just talking to Lee, everyone seemed to be in agreement in this thread, I just don't get it. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/confused.gif

 

I do think there is a major void in mainstream media when it comes to great guitar soloists, far too many guitar players (like Eric Clapton) have been put on pedestals and called gods when in reality they were wannabe Jimis http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

[KHAN]

posted by truth:

>>>Damn Lee, I often agree with you but jesus, KEITH RICHARDS IS THE WORST GUITAR PLAYER EVER, PERIOD.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Hi, I'm Khan. I'll be your waiter tonight. What can I get you for your last meal? http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/legionxs/wavey.gif

[KHAN]

Simon said:

>>>Hey Khan

glad someone else thinks the same way man.... I can't quite understand why anyone would knock his guitar tones though!! By the way how the hell are you and what have you been up to huh?

 

Simon

------------------------------------

 

Simon, I'm fine. We played the State Theater in D.C. over the weekend and blew the roof off the place! http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/ruinkai/smoker.gif

I've also been helping my buddy put the final touches on his studio. It should be open in 5 or 6 weeks. http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/cwm/circle.gif

[Lee Flier]

Wellll truth... I'll try REAL hard to be nice here http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/mad.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/mad.gif ... but let's just say that if you think Keith Richards is THE WORST GUITAR PLAYER EVER, I'm not surprised if you don't understand why I think long solos are mostly a boring wankfest.

 

I like Hendrix but certainly NOT everything he does turns me on. There are a FEW exceptions, that is, long guitar solos that I like listening to, but not very many. It has to be pretty well constructed usually, for me to like it. And even then I have to be in the mood for it.

 

But whatever, if you like listening to long solos, or playing them, go right ahead! I'll go crank up my Stones records, thanks. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by guitplayer:

I mean that vocals are the #1 bottom line for "commercial grade" music. Unless you can generate an interesting vocal part, (notice I did not say GOOD), you're not gonna get much airplay.

 

What about you... do you sing? Are you the "lead" vocalist? Has your singing ability reached the same level as your guitar playing? Do you work on it as hard...

 

I agree with you guitplayer. I love a band where there's a great vocalist AND great musicians most of all. But if there's no songwriting craftsmanship and no vocals or bad vocals, it will be very difficult to succeed commercially (although to a lot of people, that doesn't matter).

 

I've said before that all of my favorite guitar players are also great songwriters and/or producers. They understand that they're not necessarily going to be the focal point of the band, even if in many respects they ARE the focal point (such as Jimmy Page and Pete Townshend).

 

I do sing but I don't pretend I'm very good at it. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I can sing harmony quite well but I've staunchly resisted the temptation to try and become a lead singer except on one or two tunes. I would much rather find a great vocalist who preferably can also co-write with me, and I'm looking for that right now in fact. I really don't give a damn if he gets a lot of the spotlight - that's his job. I know people dig my playing and I know the other musicians will be great too. If we're having a great time playing together the audience will dig it and we'll dig it and that's what matters. Bands with weak vocals, weak songs and great musicianship have never done anything for me as a fan, so it makes no sense to me to pursue that in my own band.

 

All that said, I do miss guitar solos. There IS a happy medium somewhere, where there's room for a little "showing off" AND still great songs and vocals... Zeppelin did it, the Who did it, the Doors, quite a lot of great bands all the way up through U2 and now Radiohead. It can certainly be done. But you are right, without great vocals it's a much bigger hill to climb!

 

--Lee

[Tedster]

Eric Johnson doesn't have a bad voice at all. It's just kinda weak. If he took some time to improve his projection and enthusiasm he'd be great.

 

When I was a kid, starting out in my first bands, no one wanted to sing! Everyone wanted to be a guitar hero...and finding people with the balls to open their mouths took a lotta doing. Plus, when I was a kid, no one could sing the crap that was popular, like Led Zeppelin, and a lot of stuff with stratospheric vocals. So finding songs that worked was a little harder. But, it became readily apparent that most people would rather hear a complete version of J. Geils "House Party" than Led Zep or Boston sans vocals...so that's the direction the bands took.

 

All that said...I'll say it here...my own flame-inviting philosophy...the most important members of any band are the vocalist and the drummer. If those two ain't happening, the band sucks. Period. Put your favorite superhuman guitar hero in a band with a sucky vocalist and sucky drummer, and he'll suck. Put an average or below guitarist, average bassist, and average key person in with a great vocalist and a great drummer, and the band will cook. All the guitar dude has to do is play chords and they've got it made.

[D. Gauss]

<>

 

you got that right! ever notice how many popular punk bands have incredible drummers? and the vocalist does't have to be able to sing great or at all, just have a voice that is unique or that people indentify with.

i.e. johnny rotten or joe strummer, dylan or mick jagger. that's the problem with a lot of bands (especially metal, and all these rage agaisnt the machine clones), the voice isn't easily recognizeable. but when you hear howlin wolf, dylan, sting, johnny rotten, joanny cash, or lennon, for better or worse, you KNOW who's singing.

 

back to wanking. how many of you folks write songs for others? did you know that most music publishers don't want to hear song demos that have solos in them excepting possibly the beatle "middle 8" bar variety? as the cliche goes...."it's the song, stupid!" of course the wanking genre is a small marketplace as well, but the funny thing is, i bet a lot of these wankers (johnson, beck, satch, vai, et al) would love to be in big giant bands with singers, but their gotta have the spotlight egos won't allow it. i.e. obviously beck didn't get along with rod, david lee roth's ego leaves no room for anyone else's, and if i remember correctly, eric johnson didn't even get along with vai and satch on the wankfest G3 tour....

 

bad trivia: speaking of satch, joe satriani was the lead guitar player in greg "i lost on jeopardy" khin's band.

 

 

-d. gauss

[strat0124]

Well, again, inviting flames, but I disagree. I think the most important factor in a combo is the bass and drums. They make or break a band. Whomever fronts the band makes a huge difference but without the bass/drum combo......it ain't nothin.

As far as Keith Richards.....I think he's an awesome riffmeister. Think Brown Sugar, Jumpin Jack Flash, Sympathy for the Devil, hell just think of the album Sticky Fingers. Yeah he ain't no Hendrix, but he found his niche and defined that genre that many many artists emulate from the Black Crowes, London Quireboys, Sheryl Crow, Bonnie Raitt, Georgia Sattelites....man the list goes on and on. So there..... : )

[Tedster]

Well, I'd almost buy the bass and drums, too. But a mediocre bass player can sometimes just thunk out a single note line like what the rhythm guitar guy is doing and it'll still sound okay. But, true, a great bass player and great drummer are the absolute shit!

 

You overall need a certain standard...but to me, still, drums and vocals. Although I agree wholeheartedly about the Clash/Dylan/Neil Young etc, thing.

[D. Gauss]

really depends on the music, but as was mentioned above, bass ain't that important in lots of music. you only need rhythm and melody, and even melody is debateable these days. hell, famous bands as different as the cramps, the doors (live), hound dog taylor, jon spencer, etc. don't even have a bass player! of course there's the heavy metal "let's let unmusical joey play 8th note bass 'cause he owns the van and he let's us sleep with his sister" situation too! oh, and bill wyamn ain't no great bassist either. and usually he was too busy to be bothered to play on most tunes so keef or mick tayor, bill plummer or ronnie did it. how about some famous not-so-great-bass players (though many got better as time went by): sid vicious for the pistols, the guy in U2, paul s. from the clash, the girl in smashing pumpkins, the original bon jovi guy, etc.....

 

-d. gauss

[Lee Flier]

I'd put it this way: to the BAND, the most important person is the drummer (and to some extent the bass player too). To the AUDIENCE, the most important person is the singer. If the BAND doesn't have a great drummer they will not have much fun playing and will probably suck. If the audience doesn't have a great singer to drool over, preferably a good looking one, it will be hard for them to relate to even a band with a great rhythm section.

 

So that kinda leaves us in the shithouse don't it? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Heck, the only people less important than us are... gasp... KEYBOARD players! Or maybe trombone players (sorry Valky if you're lurking out there! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif) That's why I think it's so important to be a songwriter and arranger as well as a guitarist. If you are coming up with creative parts you will really enhance the band AND be noticed. "Guitar heroes" are a dime a dozen although the best of them do get noticed by a small audience. Nothing wrong with finding a niche and playing to that, that's for sure!

 

As for the "guitar heroes" not wanting to work with great singers, is this really a problem of the guitarists' egos, or is it because they don't want to deal with SINGERS' egos? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Sheesh, would YOU wanna work with Rod Stewart? Or David Lee Roth? No thanks! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif Trying to find a singer who's talented AND that you can get along with is TOUGH!!

 

--Lee

[KHAN]

Some comments posted above:

 

>>>*...the most important members of any band are the vocalist and the drummer.

 

>>>*I think the most important factor in a combo is the bass and drums.

 

>>>* bass ain't that important in lots of music.

 

>>>*to the BAND, the most important person is the drummer (and to some extent the bass player too).

 

>>>* the only people less important than us (guitarists) are... gasp... KEYBOARD players!

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

Hmmmm.........

[Lee Flier]

Whassamatter Khan? You thinking about taking up singing or drums? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[KHAN]

Hi Lee. http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/legionxs/wavey.gif I was just thinking that all of the various components that make up music are equally important to me. It seems meaningless to put values on their individual importance to the music. http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/blackeye/hihi.gif

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

Khan- It is a women's perogitive to change her mind.... or maybe Lee got a contact high from listening to Keith Richards. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[Lee Flier]

Steve: huh? What did I change my mind about? Maybe you're the one who got the contact high? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[strat0124]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

But whatever, if you like listening to long solos, or playing them, go right ahead! I'll go crank up my Stones records, thanks. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

I am totally with you Lee.....I'd rather hear Keith Richards play ANYTHING than hear some self indulgent "lead" player rip 64ths around a KennyG backing track.