Noobie question about rock solos!

[Jayrod]

So when those classic rock guitarists like david gilmour make a solo for a song like comfortably numb which is one of the best ever in my opinion do they just just kind of solo around and capture the thing?

In other words... do they "write" or work on solos to get them just right or did they kind of just jam one out and put their best on the record so the rest of us can fumble over how they created it in the first place? Ive always wondered that about those old school bendy solos...

[Keith]

Old school or not, most of us don't really go with the first thing that comes to mind. We do, but we build on it from there. I've done up to 10 takes just trying to build the solo up to where I want it. Even now, I change it even after it was recorded 20 years ago.

I can't speak for any other guitarist, but I record on the fly just to keep a record of something that might click and go from there and add on with more tracks. On the very odd occasion, I capture that "feeling and emotion" in one shot. I ask others to pick and choose on multipul tracks.

I don't "Write" things down..I just hear it in my head, and try new things over it.

[lufc71]

Originally Posted by Jayrod

...In other words... do they "write" or work on solos to get them just right or did they kind of just jam one out and put their best on the record ...

I saw Dave Gilmour interviewed around 10/15 years ago and he was asked this question.

He said he just noodled around a bit, recording everything. Some bits he liked so he kept 'em in, and some he didn't so he threw 'em away. He just continued this process until he eventually had a solo that he was happy with. In fact, probably the same sort of technique that all the rest of us mortals use

[Razzy]

I don't usually use bits and pieces of different takes for my solos, but I will do a hundred different takes of the entire solo if it means sounding perfect to me.

[Budda]

With that particular Solo (and MANY of his) he said he hummed/sang syllables over the Rhythm Tracks. And when he had sang the "one", he then learned how to play it on guitar.

If this appeals to you, check this out:

There are a lot of Threads here in the Forum that talk about everything from Scales, Arpeggios, Advanced Concepts, etc. And while they are a lot of fun, and very informative, I thought something a little more "Down To Earth" would be a nice change of pace.

So anyway, here's an Exercise/Practice Routine I use. It's also one I teach my Students. And the ones who actually work with it, all seem to report great results.
I know it has hepled me immensely, over the years. And I hope some here will benefit from it.

Here you go:

Tune your guitar first. We don't want Habits or any other Distractions to interfere with our Exercise.

Put your guitar in another room. Don't even think about touching it.

Now, listen to a Tune or Progression you want to play over.

Close your eyes, and just hum along. Soak the Tune in. Maybe even turn off all the lights. Immerse yourself.

Keep listening. Eventually, you'll probably start "hearing" some Melodic thoughts in your head. Try to hum them.

When you can stop the recording and hum the new Melodic Idea, THEN go get your guitar. BUT DON'T PLAY IT! Don't just start noodling on familiar things. Start humming your new Melodic Idea. If you can't remember it, put the guitar back in the other room, and start again.
Whenever you can finally hum the part, repeatedly,THEN go get your guitar again.
REMEMBER, DON'T NOODLE! Don't even Strum it! ONLY try to pick out, note-by-note, what you are humming.

Make this a main part of your practice routine.

Repeat this process for a few days. At least 1/2 hour a day. You'll eventually get better at the whole process. And this Process is what we're working towards, here.

You will find that by playing what you Hum/Sing, your ideas will be more Melodic and Natural feeling and sounding. Because one of your first, and most natural Instruments is your mind. And another is your Voice.

Later, after you have some complete Melodies, you can "embellish" them with those 3 Notes Per String, Sweep Picked, Tapped, Chopped, Topped, And Smothered Blazing Licks Of Doom! LOL

After all, that's what all those Shred Licks are for. To EMBELLISH the Melody. Not to replace it.

Rock On, Rock Soldier!

P.S.
After you have some complete Melodies, you will probably find that they already contain the "proper" Sclaes, Chord Tones, etc. That's the beauty of going "Au Natural".


So, there it is. Let me know if you try this, and what your Thoughts are on the whole Process.
Also, if you have something that involves a related Topic, please feel free to share it here.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by lufc71

I saw Dave Gilmour interviewed around 10/15 years ago and he was asked this question.

He said he just noodled around a bit, recording everything. Some bits he liked so he kept 'em in, and some he didn't so he threw 'em away. He just continued this process until he eventually had a solo that he was happy with. In fact, probably the same sort of technique that all the rest of us mortals use

In rock, yes.
This is, of course, in the context of putting something down on record, that will be listened to to again and again.

Pure improvisation is not something that is designed to be listened to more than once. It's done live, not recorded. That's still more or less the way it is in jazz and blues - even when recorded, jazz musicians won't splice takes together. They may do several takes, of the entire track, but they will choose which they think is the best one overall, without correcting any possible mistakes. The idea being to preserve the vibe of inspiration, the way the whole group works together. It would be "cheating" to correct errors, or splice together best bits of different takes; it would also rob the track of its organic "wholeness". It just ain't jazz!

Rock, in contrast, has become a recorded genre more than a live one. Also, of course, rock musicians (with very few exceptions) are not as adept at improvising as jazz musicians are. They can't rely on producing a brilliant solo (that will stand many repeated listenings) in one take - and there's no need for them to do so anyway. Moreover, the improvised section of a rock tune is not as important a part of the music as it is in jazz - and fans don't require or expect it in the way jazz audiences do.
Obviously rock guitar fans enjoy a player showing what he can do, but they appreciate composed structure, good melodic shape, rather than any ability to improvise from scratch. In jazz it's the reverse. No jazz fan wants to think a player is performing a rehearsed, pre-prepared solo, even if it's a good one; but that doesn't bother a rock fan at all.

[Jayrod]

I like recognizable music I can sing along with. Jazz is not my cup of tea because its not predictable so I prefer rock while knowing Jazz guitar is one of, if not, the most difficult genres. Pop music was pop for a reason so I guess I'm just one of the sheep.

[The Rocker]

I like improv that is one my fav things on guitar! i must admit, but as JR says if listening to a rock solo i like it to match the original, alltho alot of mine dont but a few do. lol!!

All the best, Paul.

[lufc71]

Originally Posted by JonR

In rock, yes.
This is, of course, in the context of putting something down on record, that will be listened to to again and again.....

Agreed. Another great example is the solo's of Hotel California. A real classic solo, but I bet it wasn't improvised in one go

[kevinseven]

Originally Posted by Jayrod

I like recognizable music I can sing along with. Jazz is not my cup of tea because its not predictable so I prefer rock while knowing Jazz guitar is one of, if not, the most difficult genres. Pop music was pop for a reason so I guess I'm just one of the sheep.

I agree with you Jayrod, one of the most important and 'popular' things about rock/pop music is it's repetitive verse/ chorus nature.
When I hear a catchy hook or a good riff, my ears are waiting for it to come round again in the song. Maybe in a subtly different form, maybe mindlessly repeating note for note to fade out.
So no, I don't get jazz either, I am more a fan of the perfectly crafted song, preferably guitar generated.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Jayrod

I like recognizable music I can sing along with. Jazz is not my cup of tea because its not predictable so I prefer rock while knowing Jazz guitar is one of, if not, the most difficult genres. Pop music was pop for a reason so I guess I'm just one of the sheep.

Not at all! I didn't use the word "sheep" - and wouldn't. (If you think you're a sheep, that's down to you.)
Pop music is not inferior to jazz - except in certain technical or theoretical aspects, which don't really matter a damn. "Difficulty" is not a sensible criterion by which to judge music. (Unless you're trying to play it, I guess...)
We all enjoy music for our own reasons, and many people's tastes vary day to day, even minute to minute. I get bored with jazz sometimes (hell, a lot of the time). On average, I'd certainly rather listen to the Ramones than Coltrane.

But check my signature quote...

[JonR]

Originally Posted by kevinseven

I agree with you Jayrod, one of the most important and 'popular' things about rock/pop music is it's repetitive verse/ chorus nature.

Well, most jazz has a repetitive chorus/chorus structure! (IOW, even less complicated than most rock, at least in that respect.)

Originally Posted by kevinseven

When I hear a catchy hook or a good riff, my ears are waiting for it to come round again in the song. Maybe in a subtly different form, maybe mindlessly repeating note for note to fade out.
So no, I don't get jazz either, I am more a fan of the perfectly crafted song, preferably guitar generated.

Me too. I like jazz in principle - and often live, if it's new and fresh - but not on record. But my personal inclination is toward songwriting - tho not necessarily guitar-based.
I've always been drawn to melody and rhythm, often of the crudest kind. Even when I improvise jazz solos, I try to work in simple melodic/rhythmic phrases and riffs.
Other than that, I like mood (which can be communicated by certain harmonies and chord types). But always sounds that non-musician (and non-jazz-fan) listeners can appreciate.