Lead vs Rhythm Guitar: My opinion as a nonguitarist

I've been thinking about this topic since I had to compare a song written in the 1950s to a song written in the last 10 years. The assignment was to compare and contrast the two songs and then do a short personal response. While I was writing the response I had an epiphany. When I love a song, it has a solo or some type of solo aspect to it. I realized this while I was listening to different recordings of Chuck Berry's "Johnny B. Goode," particularly the one I've included in this post. Now I don't think Chuck Berry is a master guitarist, though I do love his music. I've definitely heard better solos and other guitarists are my favorite. Jimi Hendrix is, in my opinion, the greatest guitarist ever to live, followed closely by Yngwie Malmsteen. But that is not really the point of this, just a random thought I've included. The point is, I don't understand the role of lead guitarists in a lot modern music.

The lead guitarist is supposed to be the head of the band, the most important of the instruments. If you take the lead guitarist out the song shouldn't be able to stand on it's own. That's why it's called lead. Really, you shouldn't be able to take any instrument out and still have a stand on it's own song, but that, again, is not the point. Lead guitarists lead. They're the lead because they can play more than just rhythm guitar, they can solo.

I am saddened by the fall from soloing and I blame grunge rock. I understand how music got to grunge. The 80's was getting ridiculous. Solos went crazy long, were crazy hard, and became a time just to show off. A lot of the time solos weren't even in songs, they were a show case that lead into a song. I can understand how that can get old. If you don't understand the technicality of these solos they wouldn't be interesting. I just think grunge took it a little too far.

Rhythm guitar, to me, is something that happens during the verses and chorus. It purposely doesn't draw attention to itself. Good rhythm guitar compliments the melody, doesn't overpower the singer, and is just catchy enough to get the song stuck in your head. I don't like when it's the main thing in the bridge of a song. A bridge is supposed to be different. I don't like what bridges have become. It seems to me that bands today try to see how many layers of things that have been repeated through the whole song they can get at once. I don't find that interesting. I think it's boring and a short cut to making song writing easier. Now, bands that change things up in the bridge, make one or two instruments stand out, whether it's technically a solo or not, that is interesting.

Now I will explain why I feel this way. I consider myself to be a pretty good musician. I couldn't be a professional musician but that is simply because I'm not willing to put in the time to polish that much or to pick one instrument. My main two instruments are piano and percussion. For the sake of this blog post, I'm going to focus on my experiences with jazz band. My senior year of high school I finally discovered an instrument my high school jazz band uses in every song that I love playing. It was bari sax. I love that instrument but it took me a while to find it. Here's my story.

I started my middle school jazz band playing drum set. Besides the struggle of fighting the guys for any fun parts, I had a serious problem. The way I played drum set was technical. I had the technical skills to copy people and know what would sound good. The problem with that is I couldn't hear the music in my playing. I felt like I was just banging random drums, even when I was copying a drum solo from some well known band. It was boring, I didn't like it, so the next two years I played piano.

The problem for me with jazz piano is I can't solo. Give me the chords, I can comp. It's not that hard for me to see the chord and make an interesting rhythm with the chords. Rhythm guitar is the same thing. It's basically, make this chord progression unique and interesting. I honestly think anyone who knows chords and has a sense of rhythm can do this. Soloing is hard. When you solo you have to take into account the chord progression and the type of scale you're in and rhythm and different octaves. It's a lot. I can solo with one hand on the piano. Throw in the other hand and suddenly I'm overwhelmed. So I took two years off jazz band, gave up on learning the trumpet, and learned the saxophone.

I can improvise really well on one instrument. I don't know why, but I can solo on vibraphone with 4 mallets. This, really, is how I've formed my opinion of soloing. I think true soloists have a talent in them that reveals itself through their instrument. It's the same concept as painting. Anyone can learn to paint, anyone can learn to solo. Only those that really have a gift can continually progress. Those with that gift also tend to be faster learners. I don't have that gift. After high school, I decided to stick with what I'm comfortable with, classical music.

When I listen to music I want to be impressed by something. I don't listen to songs just because they're catchy. My favorite bands are my favorite because I am impressed by their song writing abilities, technical skills, ability to mesh sounds, etc. It's hard for me to hear talent in many bands today because of their reliance on rhythm guitar. I love listening to solos. I can hear the talent in solos. I love listening to solos particularly by classic metal guitarists. I sit there and I am in awe and the speed and exactness of it. I can hear the influences and the skill. I may not be able to hum it, but I rarely hum songs anyway so it takes nothing away from my music listening experience and actually increases the pleasure that listening to music brings me.

And then there was an attack on music

I've finally done it, I've started a blog. Why? Because I just have too many thoughts that I want to yell at the world but there just isn't enough time in the day so I thought this would be simpler. So now I will share my thoughts with the world through a blog, starting with my thoughts on rock music.

I am currently in a class called Philosophy and Sociology of Rock and Roll. I've really enjoyed this class and the teacher. Before this class, I hadn't really noticed when people bash on rock or call it evil. When the professor would start talking about how often it's called evil, I would just think he was stuck in his childhood and that stuff didn't happen any more. I've come to realize, I was just oblivious. The bashing isn't as prominent as it used to be, but it's still there. I should have figured this out when I realized AC/DC does not stand for "Anti-Christ, Devil Child" but actually for "Alternating Current/Direct Current" but I didn't. I didn't really figure out how often I hear bashing of rock music and the musicians in it until yesterday while at work.

A coworker was talking about a young family that named their child "Jagger." This coworker asked if any of us would name our children after any of The Rolling Stones and my immediate answer was "yes." I really would. Brian Jones was a brilliant musician. While I'm not a huge Stones fan, I respect Jones' music and the influence he's had on basically everything since. He was the one that really brought the blues back into rock and roll after the 50's died out. He is the one that started electric rock as we know it today. I might even name my kid after Keith Richards because he is also an amazing musician and I believe he is a pretty good guy. He's recently written an autobiography called Life that has been highly recommended to me and I plan on reading. There are other musicians I would name my kids after first, but I wouldn't rule these two out.

After my response, the story most members of the LDS church have probably heard at some point came up. Elder Gene R. Cook sat next to Mick Jagger on an airplane at some point in his life. When asked what impact his music has on the people listening, he responded that it's supposed to drive them to sex. While I do believe this conversation happened, I do not believe that Jagger was completely serious. Let me share why.

When The Rolling Stones first came into the spotlight, it was at the same time as The Beatles. The Beatles had this clean cut, guy you'd like to bring home to meet your parents type look going for them. They tried to make music that both teens and adults could enjoy. The Rolling Stones decided to give the opposite image. They were the long haired, drug using, guy you'd date if you're being rebellious band. They did not try to target adults with their music at all. They did not try to keep their drug use quiet and got arrested several times. This was their image. It was purposefully the opposite of The Beatles. (The Beatles were also heavily in to drugs. If anyone doesn't believe me, just google it).

The Stones wanted to keep that image alive. That doesn't mean they were the devil, it just means they were entertainers and actors in every day life. If anyone has watched their rock and roll circus, they'd know The Stones went for shock factor. While singing "Sympathy for the Devil," Jagger rips off his shirt and the devil is drawn on his chest. Anyone that actually knows that song would know it's not saying Jagger is the devil, it's saying the devil causes all the evil in the world and we, as humans, are bound to sympathize with him. The devil on Jagger's chest was simply to get reactions out of people.

Now take that same person and put him next to a man that introduces himself as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I don't think anyone will argue with me that religious people tend to be the first to question and even attack any type of new music. (Note: This is not an all inclusive statement. I'm in a class full of members of the LDS church and we obviously love all types of music, especially rock, and I know we're not the only ones nor of the only faith that love any good music.) Elder Cook gave this talk in 1988, but I don't know when this conversation happened. No matter when it happened, Jagger had to have been performing for a decent amount of time, seeing as he was in a magazine. During that time, he'd been called the devil and other not so nice things. Put yourself in his shoes. You're now a man that has been attacked for years by many people, religious people among them, you have an image of a bad boy so it doesn't matter what your personal beliefs are, you're bad, and you are a natural entertainer that goes for shock factor whenever possible. What would you do? Give shocking answers.

I do not believe The Rolling Stones aim to make their listeners have sex. Are some of their songs about sex? Yes. Is that what all of their songs are about? Not even close. Many of their songs, especially from Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, Between the Buttons, and Exile on Main Street, are very good and have good meanings. Her Satanic Majesty's Request is another album that isn't about sex. I don't think it's very good, but that's not the point of this thought. The whole point of this is to say give music a chance.

I would not name my child after Mick Jagger. I think he's very egotistical and I do not want my child to be named after a man with 4 kids from 3 women who can't seem to keep his life together, even if he is a good musician. I also think he's sold out too much. I understand that bands need to sell out some times to survive, but Jagger's music has just become too commercial for me. I will, however, defend him and other musicians that have been attacked for years and probably for years to come. I encourage anyone that has questions about different bands and music to look into it and find out for yourself if it's good or not. Look up lyrics, it's so easy. Don't listen to anything that makes you uncomfortable. There are certain chord progressions and chords that give off an unpleasant sound. You will hardly ever see an augmented fourth/diminished fifth in classical music because of that very reason. If that type of sound affects you in a negative way, then don't listen to it. It's that simple. But never, ever attack someone else's music.

I do not condone listening to music with obviously negative and sinful lyrics. If a song is blatantly pro sex, violence, drugs, or anything else that would fall into this category, I will not be allowing my future children to listen to it, I will ask whoever is playing it to turn it off if I'm around, and I will tell anyone that asks my opinion not to listen to it. I will not write off bands because they may have some songs about that. The amazing thing about our world and how we get music is you don't need to buy the whole album anymore. If you really want to support a band, buy their cd, but if you just like one song, you can do that, too.

For the record, musicians that I deem worthy of naming a child after are as follows: Jimi Hendrix, John Paul Jones, Ian Paice, Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, Chuck Berry, Roy Khan, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Robert Plant, Jon Lord, Ritchie Blackmore, Pete Townshend, Tony Iommi, Brian Jones, and Keith Richards.