Dumb

H

Henri Devill

New member
If you are a songwriter or work with one..Do you ever have to "dumb down" your playing?Or do you feel like you do?things like playing the solo {if you even get one} simple for the sake of the song/melody and vox?And do you have to remember to keep your playing less guitaristic??Or do you have to alter your sound.. to keep stylisticly consistant with song/artist you are working on ect..Also have many times have you heard the words" man..could you play a little less"
Just questions and rant if you want;)


Don
 
Im in a band. Were a punk band. If one of us has to change the style of our playing to play the song, we just deal with it. We do some swing type stuff, some ska, some punk, some emo, so we are well rounded, so its up to the people your playing with to see if you can change or stay the same, if not, get out of that playing scene fast.

freak
 
I think one of the defining characteristics of a good guitarist is the ability to know when to back off and let the song breathe. Its not always about the solo or comlpexity of one single instrument but everything working as a whole that makes the song great. How often do you listen to a song just to hear the solo? The song itself is whats important. Thats just my opinion though...

Happy New Year!
kev
 
I hate it when people over play in a song. On the flip side, I always try and collab with people that understand that I'm a guitar player first and that I'll probably arrange their song a bit to allow me so room to be creative. I will say that there are a lot of ways to be creative and not over play.
 
I agree with everyone so far..Do any of you have to play "G/D/C" on alot of different projects..how do you keep it interesting? Yet still hold to the artistic vision the writer holds...I know that its hard to answer.What tricks do you do sonicly and emotionaly to give the project your imprint?In other words if I was hireing you.. why would I?



Don
 
The solo should NEVER take even the remotest precedence in songwriting. If you want to wank, then write a damn wank solo as a song itself.

When practicing, I usually do wacked out sweep-picking and speedy riffs after warming up so that I can get motivated to work on the actual material. But when I'm songwriting, all bets are off. Sure, there may be pockets where I may show some chops, but the emphasis is that they provide just the intensity needed at the required moment. If that means the solo is just a bluesy bend with a few pick slides, then so be it. When it's expressed just right then it never feels like I'm holding back when playing it, and it becomes a delightful treat to hear upon each playback of the song. If a solo of 200 notes in four measures just doesn't sound right when I'm writing, then it gets scrapped without further consideration.

Cy
 
smuckinfart1 said:
I think one of the defining characteristics of a good guitarist is the ability to know when to back off and let the song breathe. Its not always about the solo or comlpexity of one single instrument but everything working as a whole that makes the song great. How often do you listen to a song just to hear the solo? The song itself is whats important. Thats just my opinion though...

Happy New Year!
kev
Click to expand...

well...there were the Van Halen years....;)
 
Henri Devill said:
If you are a songwriter or work with one..Do you ever have to "dumb down" your playing?Or do you feel like you do?things like playing the solo {if you even get one} simple for the sake of the song/melody and vox?
Click to expand...
There's a lot to be said for the adage, "keep things as simple as possible, but no simpler."

As a songwriter, I've become aware that the most important things are the the production/arrangement and the basic song itself, in that order. Instrumental virtuosity is, except for possibly in a tasteful break, an impediment to a good song and is frequently downright anti-musical.

There are some exceptions, of course, but not many.

Dumbed down? No, smartened up.
 
I think gratuitous, obligatory, over the top, 1000-note guitar "solos" (if that's what we are talking about) are roughly the equivalent of masturbation. I just don't get anything out of watching another man doing it...now female wankers on the other hand...
 
In the band Im in, i often don't play anything.. I just pop in for a few melodies and such.. a good way to do it, IMO.
 
first of all

i can't stand this movement where solo's are considered jacking off,having said that i don't even play solo'sthat much and when i do it's just a couple times .i don't write with solos in mind though i do write for th song and there are places i would like to put them but if the song stands it may not need it .i'll be th first to admit i'm limited but i don't go around critisizing people who can ....and yes i do feel i have to dumb down or overly explain my songs sometimes to th other people in th band ,they want to know why is th subject doing this or that ,i think you need to leave somethings to the listener's imagination
 
I agree with not calling solos masturbation terms. I think a song should come as a whole first, and if you want a big solo, write a song around it, and make it an insturmental. Why doesnt anyone make a big deal when a bass player gets his or her groove on? I dont get it, IMHO playing a solo on bass is harder than on a guitar. but tahts just me.

freak
 
It's fascinating where people draw their lines as to what they consider 'overindulged' guitar playing versus not so. I mean, would you call anything ever done by Vai, Satch, McLaughlin, Morse, etc overindulged, not-for-the-song guitar playing?....I wouldn't think so. It's all high level , inspired creativity... Very nearly every pro player, even Malmsteen does it musically even if it's over the top. No one ever complains that jazz musicians overplay, how come? And my opinion....what Vai, Satch, Morse, et al do is too much work for a slacker player too digest,..they'd rather take the easy way out by saying they only play for the song...the result?...the vast, boring, underachieving landscape of rock today.
 
A good friend, and excellent musician, once said to me.........

It's not always what you play.....

Sometimes it's what you don't play that makes the difference....

In other words....sometimes less is more....
same same for music I think...
later,
Joe
 
joro said:
A good friend, and excellent musician, once said to me.........

It's not always what you play.....

Sometimes it's what you don't play that makes the difference....

In other words....sometimes less is more....
same same for music I think...
later,
Joe
Click to expand...

but it's interesting that everyone has there own opinion of when 'less is more' ....it's all down to personal taste, isn't it? I mean, a Dream Theater fan is gonna blow off a Neil Young fan telling them 'less is more'. Clearly , the DT fan has a different threshold for what's considered over the top or wanking. To them, it's nothing of the kind. You see?
 
Reminds me of that movie Amadeus, some guy tells Mozart, Your song has too many notes. He replies it has no more or less than required. ;)

Speed is as important as anything else. Everything is equal. Too much of any one thing is horrible.

If you ask me lame drummers, bassists, and whoever else, is a more worthwhile debate than this solo bunk. IMO if you take the guitar out of a song and find it boring, yes, even though it's incomplete, then it ain't much of a song. I don't care what guitar "god" is playin. Drums and bass are not treated like the "instruments" they are. They're all too often just something for the guitar to play over. IMO people sould listen to classical music once in while. I don't care if you play country or death metal, alot can be learned just by listening to it.

As far as dumbing down...I have yet to write with anyone. But I have played with people I've had to wait for...uncomfortable "I can't believe you haven't got it yet" feeling...That's a horrible feelin, to me anyway. Cuz' you feel for them, and wanna help, but after a while you just wanna break your arm just for an excuse to get out. It seems to me that if you're gonna write with someone they've got to be on a similar level.

my 3cents
 
Speakin as a Dream Theater fan I would never blow off a Neil Young fan. I get you're point though.


Elco said:
No one ever complains that jazz musicians overplay, how come?
Click to expand...

Excellent point. I think musician is the operative word.
 
[ Why doesnt anyone make a big deal when a bass player gets his or her groove on?


[/B][/QUOTE]

Most people simply don't notice:) Your average non musician probably doesn't even know to discern what the bass sounds like in a song. Most people just take it for granted. It has taken me a few years to train my wife to be able to "hear" the bass parts of your average rock songs etc.


Playing a bass solo is tougher especially in the context of a song with vocals etc, because as the bassists we have to keep that groove and foundation going. What I like to see or (hear) is for a bassist to "pop" a note on an offbeat ya know some where where there is sonicaly enough room and (time).

The beauty of playing bass is that by default, you are expected to in a way "dummy" the part doen to hold the groove but that leaves you plenty of room as a starting point to add little tasty accents, notes etc wherever you want to add them.


clif
 
well this is refreshing

i knew i was gonna get slammed on this but everyone seemed to be adult ...thanks ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top