http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0518-rae-guitar-solos-20150518-story.html

Gibson had the answer years ago:

http://www.tvspots.tv/video/21557/gibson-guitars--lyrics

That's ok. Most of the country leads that I have heard lately were distorted guitar rock leads anyway!

Ducking and running for cover

I know, you still like Gene Autry's pickin...

Bob

There are very little guitar solos in radio rock or pop music as well. You have to go to progressive rock to hear solos these days, or one of the guitar heros like Joe Bonnamassa or the like to hear guitar solos.

Country music is no longer country, but Nashville Pop. Rock with a twang. Most musicians I know around here don't call it country, but call it Nashville.

The demise of the instrumental solo in rock and Nashville pop is sad to me. But then I think I'm a much better instrumentalist than vocalist.

When we cover those songs, since I do my own backing tracks, I often add a space to play a guitar/sax/wind-synth/flute solo. It extends the song, and gives me a chance to improvise (which I love doing).

Rock, Country and R&B have had a long history of instrumental solos, often as the climax of the song. But things change. Sometimes I like the changes, sometimes I don't but I have no choice but to roll with them.

Insights and incites by Notes

There's no solo's in any modern pop stuff, doesn't matter what instrument, horns, keys, guitars. There's squat happening. Ok, ok before someone posts an example with a solo in it, let me rephrase that. There are few solos around any more.

Bob

Strangely we haven't seen any music that was purely instrumental make the charts for a very long time. Remember "Telstar"? also the original backing group for Cliff Richard, "The Shadows" did quite a few that made the charts, Also Fleetwood Mack did "Albatross" where has that gone wrong?

That's because most of the music is made with computers/auto tuners these days. You don't need any talent now in order to be a singer.

Ever heard the real vocals of some these "artists?" They get leaked now and then and they simply can't sing in tune.

It's all about the quick buck on iTunes.

Trax

Don't know...I've read somewhere sometime that instrumental music is boring.

Start of personal opinion side track:
"Actually that could be true in a lot of cases and most non-jazz instrumentals are rather short. Just imagine Marty Robbins' El Paso as a full length instrumental. Actually nothing is happening while the vocal version tells a rather interesting story.

Often jazz instrumentals are not interesting because the instrumentalists often show extensively the lowest and highest notes they can play and how fast they can go from one to the other. I have a recording somwhere where after about four or five minutes you learn that the tune is On the Sunny Side of the Street by the band playing the musical theme once.

I, that is my personal preference, like to listen to instrumentals. I have quite a few albums strictly instrumental. I even bought a Chris Gaffney CD because of the two instrumentals on it."
End of personal opinion side track.

Most radio stations that I know play instrumentals on request or as time fillers that can be faded in or out, or are used as fillers between information casts to aurally separate them from each other; in a sense that even the dumbest of the public has a chance to notice that there is something different coming.

The instrumental stuff that is happening these days, is, wait for it.......dubstep and other electronic dance music.

When I grew up there were always a few instrumentals on the charts. From Duane Eddy's Rebel Rouser through the disco era and beyond with TSOP and so much more in-between and after (just a few, the aforementioned Telstar, Classical Gas, Honky Tonk, Fire On High, Desifinado, Cast Your Fate To The Wind, The In Crowd, Out Of Limits, Because They're Young, Magic Bird Of Fire, Rumble, Walk Don't Run, Green Onions, The Horse, Beck's Bolero, Frankenstein, Eruption, XYZ, Surfing With The Alien, Rise, Stranger On The Shore, Chariots Of Fire, Gonna Fly Now (Rocky's Theme), Love's Theme, Miami Vice Theme, Raunchy, Wipe Out, Midnight In Moscow, Outta Space, Axel F, Soulful Strut, Pipeline, Feels So Good, Songbird, Pick Up The Pieces, Tequila, and so on).

Instrumental music boring? It depends. I could listen to Dvorak's Ninth Symphony or Tchaikovsky's Sixth, or Beethoven's Seventh and so many more millions of more times.

Depends on the instrumental. There are some boring jazz songs, and some delightful ones as well. Depends on the song and musicians.

There are a lot of boring vocal songs out there, and a lot of boring instrumentals as well.

What about Silver Convention's "Get Up And Boogie"? (entire lyrics, "Get up and boogie, Get up and boogie, Get up and boogie, That's Right" over and over and over and over and over again.

Plus the instrumental solo in the middle of a song is often either the climax of the song or a release from the vocals. What would Hotel California, Santana's version of Black Magic Woman, Stairway To Heaven, or even Aretha Franklin's version of Respect be without the instrumental solo? Less of a song I guarantee. (Sorry I don't have any Nashville music examples because I don't listen to it that much).

I listen to a lot of symphonic music, and I don't prefer concertos because like a vocal pop song with no instrumental break, one voice (instrument) dominates the entire song with no release from that voice (with some rare concerto exceptions).

I am a good singer, plus I play saxophone, flute, wind synthesizer, guitar, bass, keyboard synth, and drums. So my opinion comes from my own personal experience.

Before I learned to sing, I thought vocal songs were boring. They I decided to think of the words as simply articulation without any meaning, and I learned to appreciate that, and later I learned to combine the articulation with the meaning.

The main thing I think about with a song, is don't bore me. And that doesn't matter whether it is an instrumental or vocal. The next thing is tickle my ears and give me an eargazm.

So I lament the excising of the instrumental break in pop music (including Nashville). But then, they didn't ask me.

Notes

No offense, I wrote that I have read that at some point in time and I believe it was a printed medium, several years ago.

A good instrumental is a change of speed and mood. Sometimes one doesn't need words. Most people would probably take an instrumental album with them on the lonesome island. I would, a) because the words to a song might be boring after listening to it too many times -- that depends on the song and your mood in relation to the song, and b) an instrumental provides more room for imagination.

But today's young generation? I don't know, when I listen to their songs, the depth of their lyrics is often still as shallow as it was when Roy Orbison's Ooby Dooby or Jack Scott's Geraldine was cut.

But today, instrumentals don't seem to be broadcast. And good instrumental breaks or solos are hard to find. I once bought an album by Marcel Dadi, because one of the songs was the background music for the water-level reports of the Süddeutscher Rundfunk in Stuttgart.

Everything in our culture seems to be transient now days. Facebook has by and large replaced internet forums. Even history documentaries have gotten bloated with fast "in out and gone" visuals and music snips. Fast food, fast everything. Many rarely sit down and LISTEN to music of any genre -- it's all about marginally hearing a tune on the mobile device while a friend is trying to talk to you. Interesting lyrics and solos require at least a modicum of attention and contemplation. Not many seem to harbor that notion. Yeah there are many exceptions, especially in Americana, but by and large the whole palette has shifted. Me? I will never drift away from a good blues bluegrass, rock or Jazz solo.

Ole Phart rant #312.6 (ii)

I believe the two main avenues for the public to hear instrumentals today are The Weather Channel and National Public Radio. Unfortunately, both rarely plays a complete song.

BINGO! No need to run brother. lol

Later,

I still remember the sensation buying a vinyl album at the store, reading the liner notes in a crammed streetcar on the way home and then the undisturbed listening to it the first time all the way through both sides, sometimes even twice in a row...

It's called TONE....


But back to the thread topic.... solo's in country music or any other genre for that matter.... Back when there were actual records and albums, there was often an LP version (the long version) and the 45 radio version. Nothing new actually. They've been cutting song lengths for as long as there's been radio stations needing to squeeze more commercials into the limited time available.


It's been a while now, but with a song I was working on... called Come & Go.... (on my music site) I had been working with the staff at NSAI in trimming it and refining it. In a one on one session with the then president RC Bannon, he made a comment that the song was really good but....... I needed to "lose the guitar solo" and use a simple very short, turnaround and get back to the chorus. He said..."No one wants to hear your guitar playing here in Nashville".... give them the song as quickly as you can. The solo used to live at 2:56 in the song... it's now a 4 second turnaround.

Now days, I don't even plan for a guitar solo if I plan to plug the song to a publisher. Just leave it out.... if it's a song that I don't care about trying to plug, it will likely have a solo of some length or another.

Dang, I sure do miss those album cuts.

I too remember LPs with liner notes. They seem more substantial because of their size. But even though I like the sound of an LP slightly better, I prefer CDs. I'd rather have the CD's quantization error distortion than the surface noise distortion of an LP. Plus you don't have to flip the CD mid-symphony.

My desert island music would be some great symphonies. As much as I enjoy most kinds of music, I can listen to a good symphony a thousand times and still find something new, a variation of a theme or something else I haven't noticed before.

I think that when pitching a song to Nashville or anywhere else, there is no need for a solo. The people you are pitching that song to are busy and have dozens more to listen to. Don't waste their time on elaborate intros, instrumental breaks, or anything else non-essential to the song.

And yes, people don't listen to music like they used to. I believe the last era of people seriously listening to music was around the psychedelic era. It slowly tapered off from there to now where people hear the hook and that's about it.

I don't know how to fix that. If I did, I'd become a consultant to the recording industry.

Insights and incites by Notes

Guess I just don't like the TONE....

Later,

Well, I've got a hit country song with a killer guitar solo in it ready to go. I'm just waiting for the right time and place to pitch it so I can watch it climb the charts. I don't know though, I may just keep it hidden. We'll see....

All kidding aside, the pop-i-fication and hip-hop-i-fication of country music has somewhat diminished the importance of instrumentalists.

Having said that, that hit duet "Remind Me" with Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood, I always felt the guitar solo was too much, too rock, too edgy. But, I'm just a guy with an opinion and no songs on the radio:)

If that's nonsensical rambling, forgive me...I've been up a long time...T-Storms.

I think a lot of this has to do with the lack of music education in high schools. Around here all of the money goes to sports while the arts, music and art classes, are being cut. High school marching bands are extinct around here. Back in the late 50s to the early 70s every high school in this area had a marching and symphonic band and all were pretty damn good!

Also high school rock bands around here are non-existing. Again back in the day just about every high school had a couple of rock bands competing for jobs. The kids in these guitars, bass, Farfisa type keyboards and drum bands listened to records so they could copy/transcribe what they heard. In my high school music class we were taught how to listen to classical albums, rock and jazz was not accepted yet.

I have a few students whom are ready to be in a beginner's band however they know no one whose plays an instrument other than what is taught in music class. But like I said those classes are being either cut or downsized.

That is my take but YMMV.

And that's a shame because sports damages children. I was reading excerpts from the yearly conference of the American Academy of Anti Aging Medicine and the consensus was, "Don't let your child play tackle football unless you don't like him." Why? Most sports involve concussions - especially tackle football. The helmet protects the head, but not the brain slamming the inside of the skull.

People who play football in school have about a 25% greater than average chance of getting Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other brain diseases later in life, and will get them earlier than average.

So if you let your son or daughter play contact sports, you are increasing the odds of dementia when they reach old age.

For pro ball players, it approaches 50%, for pro boxers about 75%.

They called it "sports' dirty little secret".

Music teaches the brain to work better, sports lead to early brain diseases. But sports make more money for the schools.

Makes you not even want to watch the ball game when you know they are damaging their brains.

It's a shame the schools focus on sports instead of the humanities. The humanities build the brain, and isn't that what school is supposed to do?

Insights and incites by Notes