Down Tuning to Play Songs

[rclite]

As some of you know I've only been playing for a little but in that time i've learnt loads include the joys of down tuning. You can get some wicked riffs from it and can also help with various complex chords.

 

Last week out with my m8's we saw a small band at a club and getting close I could see the lead guitarist playing with one finger (barred on all strings). Through the whole 4 mins song!!

 

Havning talked with the guy he bad mouthed complex solos and riffs and reffered to them as Fretboard Masturbating?? And that I waste my time!?

 

Is this a common thought with todays young guitarists?

[TurboDog]

In the last several years, there has been a "movement" of guitarists who boycott solos. I couldn't really tell you why.

 

Solos have been a part of guitar music for several decades. Most of the greats still solo in most, if not all, of their songs. I recommend highly that you learn to solo as well. Doesn't mean you have to play like Petrucci, but a fill/riff/solo, even small ones, can add character to your playing.

 

I know some guys in a rock/punk bad who have 2 guitarists, neither one has ever learned soloing techniques. They've been adamant about never playing solos. They smirk at me when they hear me practicing some speed stuff. Now, 2 years later, they are learning some small fills to their songs.

 

You will also hear young guitarists knock the 80's hair bands and their guitarists. This always pisses me off, because there were some extremely gifted guitarists rocking hard in many of these bands. The talent level of guitarists, in my opinion, has gone downhill since those days. Today, the new rock is largely power chords in dropped tunings. Extremely easy and extremely boring.

 

I hate to sound this way, but I think many people scoff at solos, because they can't play them. It takes a lot of time to learn how to play fast and accurate. I'm still working on my speed and probably always will.

 

Now, there are some guitarists who go overboard. I sometimes get tired of hearing guys like Malmsteen, Vai, Petrucci, Satch, etc, just going off all the time. Sometimes I'd just prefer a Beatles song. But sometimes I have to have my shredding fix, and I pop a VanHalen CD in and crank the volume.

[Sylver]

It is a backlash from the 80's hair bands for sure. Speed playing became sort of a competition as the 80's rolled on and a lot of people thought it was just silly(I know I did). The point was that music stopped being musical and started becoming a sport. Then all the grunge anti-shred music came along, and it seems that philosiphy holds true today. It think the thing that a lot of the young guys missed is that solos don't really need to fast, but the do, absolutly, positively have to be meaningful and in context. David Gilmore never was a flash player, but he wrote and played some of the most memorable and recognizable guitar parts of the 70's and 80's. He is just one example.

 

Jack

[TDriver]

I can deal with drop tuning in moderation, but not as a cover up for a lack of talent. Picasso had to start with realiam before he could popularize his cubist technique. I personally like to know that they have the ability, but know what is appropraite for a good song. Soloing has kind of lost it's place since the wanking for the covers of guitar magazines in the 80's and 90's.... remember Alex Skolnick in Testament... he ripped, but the band became a showcase for him, and the music suffered. Solos should add to a song, not overpower it!

[Virtual Jim]

You guys know that the kids that the kids that knock solos are full of shit right?

 

Being of the "MTV Generation" (whatever that is), I've met with some of those hipster fucks, and generally, the ones without chops don't have their shit together.

 

Of course, I've gotta say that although I'm a huge fan of solos (not just the guitar variety), hearing 20 min "jazz odyssey"s of chops for the sake of chops in a turn off. And for most hair metal, if the end product sucks, it doesn't matter how good the guitar playing, production, singing, whatever is... it still sucks. Apply this principle to grunge, nu metal, classic rock, whatever.

[TurboDog]

Hey, I'm with you Jim. Solos, like anything else, must be done with moderation, style, and appropriateness. If you can take your solo out of a particular song, and drop it seamlessly into another of your songs, then it's a shitty solo. A solo should fit the song.

 

I respect te hell out of jazz players, but I can only listen to so much before I wanna slap somebody. Improv jazz playing is very much a "show-off" deal, and I can do without.

 

Part of composing great solos, is to accent the song. The greats know how to do this. But it still takes a ton of practice, and I think a lot of kids today don't want to put in the time.

 

Just my take.

[Chip McDonald]

If you choose to do a solo - you're in the same category as everyone - EVERYONE - who does it. No one is above anyone else in philosophy. The bozo punk guitar player who can't play anything, doesn't know anything, yet still tries to "solo" - badly - is NO FREAKING DIFFERENT in philosophical approach than Yngwie, except they suck at it. They're both trying to do a "solo", and they're both trying to impress; that's why punk musicians make records just like everyone else, because they want people to hear them play JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

 

Just because someone sucks at something doesn't mean they're somehow elevated to the status of "artistically more valid"; just because Yngwie, me, or whoever choose to play what seems like "fast" to everyone else doesn't mean it's any less valid.

 

IN FACT, the way I look at it is that it's actually MORE valid - because if my cruising speed is 4x faster than someone else's "frantic" speed, then *I'm* the one who is making a more valid musical statement, aren't I? The note density is irrelevant, that's entirely subjective - less does not equal more, more doesn't not equal less, and vice versa - DUMB means less, and playing deliberately dumb or otherwise is NOT ARTISTICALY VALID.

 

Guitar Player A does a solo that is as fast as he can go - let's say 8th's at 110 bpm - he's not as likely to be consciously in control of what he's doing as Guitarist B who solos completely aware of what he's doing while playing 32nds at 140. Guitar A then announces to the world "Guitar Player B is a wanker because he plays fast bullshit, that's not valid" - sorry, that's completely and utter nonsense. Most of world is nonsense.

[Nollykin]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

[QB]If you choose to do a solo - you're in the same category as everyone - EVERYONE - who does it. No one is above anyone else in philosophy. The bozo punk guitar player who can't play anything, doesn't know anything, yet still tries to "solo" - badly - is NO FREAKING DIFFERENT in philosophical approach than Yngwie, except they suck at it. They're both trying to do a "solo", and they're both trying to impress; that's why punk musicians make records just like everyone else, because they want people to hear them play JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

[QB]

Spoken like a true champion, as always chip. I dont deny that I want my songs to be heard - and wether I solo, wether I thrash chords, wether I tune down and hold one finger... its all the same in the end. People have a love for music, fork out the money for a guitar, and they play it how they see fit - to fit the music that they like. People are big headed, but in the end, we all just want to be somebody for who we are... and that means playing our own style.

 

Noone is wrong, noone is right. and if 80s hair has killed solos, or enlightened it, so be it. We were all playing flutes and violins in the 1800s. We play what we like. I play what I like... The music flows from me not as something predesigned - just... my music. Thats it. And its how it always should be.

 

Long live the musician who follows his dreams!

[The Bear Jew]

Hey gang.

I definitely struggled with this issue in the past.

 

When I first started playing with bands (in High School,) I was the only guitarist that any the bands knew who could play a "respectable" solo -- one that sounded like something they could recognise. Most of the other guitarists kind of faked it. So I played with a lot of people who only wanted me to solo -- we played a lot of fast punk songs that lapsed into long, jammy parts.

 

Looking back, it was pretty weird.

 

Eventually, I got really tired of solos. By the time I was in my early 20s, I was basically "anti-solo." I down-tuned my guitar and all the songs I wrote were short, direct and had minimal solos if they even had one at all. When my songs had solos back then, they were very short melodic bursts lasting eight measures at most. I was like this for about four years.

 

Then, something happened. I started hearing other things in the music -- stuff that wasn't there, but should be.... I started hearing little embellishments (fills, longer solos, etc) in my head. Over the past five years, I've fallen back in love with the guitar solo as something that can take a song to another level.

 

These days, I'm still down-tuned, and I still like my songs to be direct and focused. However, I'll add a 16-measure guitar solo to a song if it belongs in there.

 

@rclite,

There's nothing wrong with solos or having technical skills as a guitarist. Frowning on speedy soloing is just a trend. I know (for a FACT) that a lot guitarists who don't play a lot of solos or make fun of them actually have the skills to play them. You'd be suprised at the skills some of these guys have!! They just don't play solos because they don't want to disturb the style of music they're dedicated to playing. Essentially, they are either too dense to recognize the potential value in expanding a song with a solo or they think they have to fit into a certain "mold" dictated by their chosen musical genre.

 

Either way, the only person's opinion that matters here is yours -- play what sounds best to you. Ask for advice and opinions, but always weigh them against what feels best to you.

 

Hope this helps.

[Sylver]

I want to clairify that I'm not against fast solos, or slow solos or no solos at all. I do think that it's all valid. I was just saying that some of the 80's hair band and shred stuff seems to me to throw musical taste out the window, going for the "Wow, that guy is fast" factor instead of the "Wow, that solo really moved me." Music to me will always be about emotional content, and how much I can connect with the listener, not about impressing other musicians.

[TurboDog]

My thoughts exactly Sylver.

 

Hey I love to listen to SRV go off. When Malmsteen does it, it just doesnt move me. I'm not saying that he's less valid or musical, he just doesnt move me.

 

Eddie moves me. So does Randy Rhodes, Clapton, Hendrix, Page and about 20 others. Usually Satriani and sometimes Vai.

 

It's all a matter of taste. What I was trying to say...is that if your solo works just as well in all of your songs, then it wasn't tailored to the song, and I think that's wrong.

 

I love to play fast. I work on speed every time I practice. I've mastered some runs that I can't picture working in any song, but theyre a blast to play. A lot of my fret tapping wouldnt work in songs, but theyre damn fun too.

 

I'm all for playing fast in the right situations. Hell, I've got a reputation for being an 80's guitarist! (I highly resent this by the way. Not because I hate 80's guitarists. I love many of them. It's more because I can do a lot more that 80's stuff. Like most people, I started in the blues.)

 

Peace