The Length of a Classic Rock solo...


PDA

View Full Version : The Length of a Classic Rock solo...


Maet
01-06-2007, 03:31 PM
Perhaps it's just me, but I absolutely hate solos in classic rock songs that last longer than a few minutes. It seems to be that everyone in here thinks "the longer, the better". I just read a post in the Cream thread here that compared Hendrix-esque 20 minutes guitar solos to Clapton-esque 20 minute guitar solos. And then there's the drum solo. Moby Dick barely classifies as a song if you ask me.

My question is, personally, can a classic rock solo ever be too long?

somewhat_here
01-06-2007, 03:37 PM
you're an idiot...

jk. well they were probably all stoned and lost track of time.

timmEH
01-06-2007, 03:38 PM
i love the long clapton solo's :p:
i agree with you on some points though......when the long solo gets repetitive its time to stop...but some guys(id use clapton as an example) keep changin it up and dont get "boring"
and yea...20 min drum solos............unless its peart then its not really worth my time :p:

sam i am
01-06-2007, 03:39 PM
I suppose days would be a long time. It depends on the guitarist. Hendrix and Clapton could get away with 20 minute solos, I couldnt.

Xerothunder
01-06-2007, 03:41 PM
20 minute solos? I'd only listen to that if it could be done in such a way that it was in NO WAY repetitive... meaning it should feel like 6 or 7 different songs, but strung together really well.

ilovethinlizzy
01-06-2007, 03:44 PM
anything more than 5 minutes is ****ing ridiculous. the only one i can stand is freebird and thats draws out a bit.
the whole point of a song is the hooks and melody not some twat showing off how much theory he knows or how many licks he can play

Oddpod11
01-06-2007, 03:44 PM
My favorite guitar solo of all time goes to Highway Star, Deep Purple (live version, of course). Which lasts no more than a minute and a half, so there goes my vote. Also it depends: Studio solos need to be shorter, but Live versions can be much longer, especially if they involve the audience somehow, or are actually *performing*, not just *playing*.

sam i am
01-06-2007, 03:52 PM
20 minute solos? I'd only listen to that if it could be done in such a way that it was in NO WAY repetitive... meaning it should feel like 6 or 7 different songs, but strung together really well.

yeah, you dont as often find 20 mins of the guitarist soloing over the same pattern, they usually go through phases.... the led zep live version of whole lotta love (usually around 25 mins) is actually a medly of loads of blues songs

Luncbox
01-06-2007, 03:55 PM
On an album, five minutes is definitely pushing it. Live, however, I got all day. Especially when the guitarist is Pagey or one of the greats.

psychodelia
01-06-2007, 03:55 PM
The more jazz-influenced artists tend to make longer solos that interest me more. Traffic, Duane Allman, people like that. And even then, more than a few minutes really pushes it.

The main problem for me is that so much of extended CR soloing is several minutes on one pentatonic scale over a stale background, without much dynamic contrast.

BrainDamage
01-06-2007, 08:20 PM
I tend to dislike drum solos to begin with (theres a few every now and then that I do like though). That being said, I absolutely think Moby Dick went on for too long when played live.

And really, it depends on who's playing. Sometimes Jimmy Page gets a little carried away. I think the same for Neil Young. I love the Grateful Dead, but I even think Jerry takes it a little too far on some songs (not all, but a few). But then again, I could listen to some guitarists all day. Namely Rory Gallagher, David Gilmour, Frank Zappa, Joe Walsh, Joe Perry/Brad Whitford. Oh yeah, Duane Allman is great as well.

Nighthawk551
01-06-2007, 08:35 PM
Anything over 20 minutes is a little long for me, but I have quite a bit of tolerance for long solos since I listen to a lot of progressive rock.

THEHENDRIX101
01-07-2007, 12:48 AM
I don't know, but solo's don't relly bother me. I love listening to them. I can pick up on them easily so i can learn just by listening. I can play a solo all day. That's what rock is all about.

b.lunt
01-07-2007, 02:19 AM
About solos? I enjoy being a lead player, and believe you me, I love soloing but rocks is definitely not about solos, at least 98% of it anyway.

Andrewbiles
01-07-2007, 06:55 AM
It completely depends on what the song is, who the guitarist is and what the situation is. Sometimes live you get stuck into solos and can cope better with them going on for two or three minutes, if you're doing some real attentive listening of a CD then anything past a minute tends to make me change my focus, but then some songs are basically one long solo and listenable. Generally though I'd say any solo that is actually a break in a song longer than two minutes is too long, but like I say, there's exceptions.

blues_rocker
01-07-2007, 05:05 PM
It depends on the musicians. I can stand the long Deep Purple jams and some of the longer Clapton ones. Most CR musicians get a little carried away and repetitive though.

TheHeartbreaker
01-07-2007, 08:47 PM
To me, it's not so much a matter of how long it is, as whether it is a well-composed solo that both fits the music, enhances it, and also holds your interest.

I agree that a lot of solos are longer than they should be, but at the same time, there are some solos that leave me breathless, are over, and yet have me asking for more.

ledhed68
01-07-2007, 09:07 PM
I don't care how long it is, as long as its of high quality.

zeppelinpage4
01-08-2007, 02:55 AM
As long as it's good, i'll listen to a solo even if it's 5 hours long.

ECistheBest
01-08-2007, 03:01 AM
As long as it's good, i'll listen to a solo even if it's 5 hours long.

yea...
i never want a clapton live solo to end.

stonegolem13
01-08-2007, 05:19 AM
I'd say about 7 minutes is the maximum limit...I mean if you're sitting there playing a solo with a band they're gonna get a little bored playing the same thing whilst you're playing for above that...Instrumentals are an exception however (I couldn't live without Atom Heart Mother's 23:36 minute goodness) ;)

Lessthanbass22
01-08-2007, 08:43 PM
Their are certain bands with guitarist that i could listen to a solo all day long, Phish and the Grateful Dead are two of them, yet their are still bands where after 5 minutes it just gets boring, although i do not like studio solos over 5 minutes, in order for it to be a good solo the guitarist really needs to connect to the crowd.

Cptbeefheart
01-08-2007, 09:23 PM
It really depends on the band and the situation. If its live and a great band like the Allmans, Cream, Phish, the Dead, Zeppelin, or Hendrix, their respective guitarists could solo the whole time for all I care. I would still enjoy it. But for a normal band live 4 to 5 minutes is the maximum.

On a studio record, between 4 to 5 minutes for most bands. If it goes over that, well than thats excessive.

wilty00
01-08-2007, 10:03 PM
The solos that are short and to the point are the ones that catch my interest, I can never really enjoy anything past 2 or 3 minutes its REALLY special.

Bonplant
01-08-2007, 11:44 PM
The Clapton and Hendrix solos are amazing, but after a little while they full in a sort of lull. I always thought that tastier leads like K. K. Downing and Glen Tipton use have longer lasting effects on the memory because they usually cut them down to only one or two minutes.

*Even though Judas Priest does break this rule in a couple of songs(Beyond the Realms of Death) they still put a little more diversity to their leads.

thunderbass15
01-10-2007, 07:19 PM
Perhaps it's just me, but I absolutely hate solos in classic rock songs that last longer than a few minutes. It seems to be that everyone in here thinks "the longer, the better". I just read a post in the Cream thread here that compared Hendrix-esque 20 minutes guitar solos to Clapton-esque 20 minute guitar solos. And then there's the drum solo. Moby Dick barely classifies as a song if you ask me.

My question is, personally, can a classic rock solo ever be too long?


:no:
are you kidding me
long solos are what shaped classic rock into what it has become
:no:

get-born
01-10-2007, 08:40 PM
When they streach them out too long, I don't like it as much, I get bored, 3-4 minutes at the most can stay allright with me, not getting bored.

Maet
01-10-2007, 09:03 PM
:no:
are you kidding me
long solos are what shaped classic rock into what it has become
:no:

A fish trap full of idiot teenagers? I whole heartedly agree! :cheers:

wilty00
01-12-2007, 01:36 AM
:no:
are you kidding me
long solos are what shaped classic rock into what it has become
:no:


One of the dumbest statements I've seen on the forums, and thats saying something. Kudos for that one.

TheUltimateSin
01-12-2007, 03:51 AM
It completely depends on what the song is, who the guitarist is and what the situation is. Sometimes live you get stuck into solos and can cope better with them going on for two or three minutes, if you're doing some real attentive listening of a CD then anything past a minute tends to make me change my focus, but then some songs are basically one long solo and listenable. Generally though I'd say any solo that is actually a break in a song longer than two minutes is too long, but like I say, there's exceptions.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly, actually. It really depends on the guitarist in question and the situation.

Derigiberble
01-12-2007, 04:27 AM
Get rid of solos. All together, they're just a chance for artists too show off. That's what Jazz is for.

VoodooChild15
01-13-2007, 12:21 AM
It depends. I can listen to a live jam a lot longer than I can listen to a studio version.

mercedesisbenz
01-13-2007, 12:50 AM
Get rid of solos. All together, they're just a chance for artists too show off. That's what Jazz is for.

you're an idiot.

ledhed68
01-13-2007, 01:40 AM
you're an idiot.

I'm gonna give him the benifit of the doubt and say that it was an attempt at a joke.

sam i am
01-13-2007, 08:33 AM
Get rid of solos. All together, they're just a chance for artists too show off. That's what Jazz is for.

yeah, jimi hendrix shows off way too much, he should get rid of the solos in his songs... :rolleyes:

Derigiberble
01-13-2007, 11:25 AM
Oh sorry, am I not allowed an opinion no? I don't really care for guitar solos unless they're tastefully done, which in classic rock they rarely are. I like jams and I love breakdowns in songs, but that's all a solo should be, a breakdown, not a 2 minute wank fest.

sam i am
01-13-2007, 02:29 PM
of course your allowed an opinion, it just that i disagree with it.

Although I agree that the artists do show off, I think thats part of what classic rock is/was, pushing boundries and that...

Derigiberble
01-13-2007, 02:46 PM
I'd hardly say a minor pentatonic solo pushed boundaries in music, particularly seen as all they were doing was mimicking old blues artists playing. They were hardly original.

Satch_Boogie
01-13-2007, 03:07 PM
As long as its interesting, it can go on forever.

Take Sunday
01-13-2007, 03:08 PM
hey...satch boogie, thats a joe satriani song :)

metallic blimp
01-13-2007, 09:42 PM
I think we need to differentiate between a jam, and a solo.

I can listen to a half hour jam with no qualms whatsoever. For example, the Allman Brother's "Mountain Jam." In the jam, each musician has the chance to take a solo of 3-5 minutes. What makes it interesting is that between the solo's the whole band plays premeditated parts. The result is: written part-solo-written part-solo...etc.

There is a huge difference between that and say, a lead guitarist soloing for 20 minutes. That is just dull and boring. If you can't say what you need to say musically in under 5 minutes, then you really should shorten it up. I have never heard a solo in excess of 10 minutes that has even remotely sparked my interest.

Derigiberble
01-14-2007, 06:17 AM
I think we need to differentiate between a jam, and a solo.

I can listen to a half hour jam with no qualms whatsoever. For example, the Allman Brother's "Mountain Jam." In the jam, each musician has the chance to take a solo of 3-5 minutes. What makes it interesting is that between the solo's the whole band plays premeditated parts. The result is: written part-solo-written part-solo...etc.

There is a huge difference between that and say, a lead guitarist soloing for 20 minutes. That is just dull and boring. If you can't say what you need to say musically in under 5 minutes, then you really should shorten it up. I have never heard a solo in excess of 10 minutes that has even remotely sparked my interest.

:snyper:

rx_eb
01-14-2007, 07:19 AM
I think we need to differentiate between a jam, and a solo.

I can listen to a half hour jam with no qualms whatsoever. For example, the Allman Brother's "Mountain Jam." In the jam, each musician has the chance to take a solo of 3-5 minutes. What makes it interesting is that between the solo's the whole band plays premeditated parts. The result is: written part-solo-written part-solo...etc.

There is a huge difference between that and say, a lead guitarist soloing for 20 minutes. That is just dull and boring. If you can't say what you need to say musically in under 5 minutes, then you really should shorten it up. I have never heard a solo in excess of 10 minutes that has even remotely sparked my interest.

words of wisdom

paintITblack39
01-14-2007, 11:35 AM
I think we need to differentiate between a jam, and a solo.

I can listen to a half hour jam with no qualms whatsoever. For example, the Allman Brother's "Mountain Jam." In the jam, each musician has the chance to take a solo of 3-5 minutes. What makes it interesting is that between the solo's the whole band plays premeditated parts. The result is: written part-solo-written part-solo...etc.

There is a huge difference between that and say, a lead guitarist soloing for 20 minutes. That is just dull and boring. If you can't say what you need to say musically in under 5 minutes, then you really should shorten it up. I have never heard a solo in excess of 10 minutes that has even remotely sparked my interest.
That statement is heavenly :down:


As for solos, it really depends on the band and song. Some bands have the vibe to do longer solos and some bands don't.

Lost_Rose
01-14-2007, 12:15 PM
yea...
i never want a clapton live solo to end.

Likewise

thunderbass15
01-14-2007, 02:44 PM
Get rid of solos. All together, they're just a chance for artists too show off. That's what Jazz is for.

you go to hell. you go to hell and you die!!!

Derigiberble
01-14-2007, 03:55 PM
you go to hell. you go to hell and you die!!!

Fuck off.

ledhed68
01-14-2007, 04:07 PM
Get rid of solos. All together, they're just a chance for artists too show off. That's what Jazz is for.

The same thing could be said about vocals, except with another genre of music of course, but it's you're opinion.

Defaulted
01-14-2007, 07:02 PM
To me it doesn't really matter. As long as its good.

aprescott_27
01-17-2007, 07:51 PM
If it's much over five minutes, it starts to get old, IMO.

les_paul_01
01-18-2007, 05:45 AM
yeah, IMO over 8 minutes is getting pretty comical.

i mean, i don't care if a songs 8 bars or 5 minutes, as long as its GOOD there's no problem.

"Free Bird" by Lynyrd Skynyrd is a good example. it is pretty much the second half of the song, and yet it stays well in the context of song, and doesn't get boring (but hey that's just me).

on the other hand, something like "horse with no name" by America is a short solo, but does the job well. it has some nice little melodic motifs, and ends with a nice run, all in the space of 8 bars.

Dan of Dans
01-25-2007, 12:40 AM
It can be as long as it has to be. If the artist is really feelin it that day than the solo shall be long. its nothing to get upset about. if the artist can be all original its fabulous but oncce it starts repeating having pauses in it thrn i get a little...upset but not that upset to...eat cheesecake intell you cant see your feet.

feenux258
01-25-2007, 05:43 PM
i think mother and wish you were here are amazing solos (easy and short) but still fits so well

but i also like longer stuff it all depends on the song if the solo is the same for like 20 min then it sux but if it changes and fits with the music it could last all day and i would love it

fadingboy
01-25-2007, 07:23 PM
i actually think the grateful dead drag it out a bit, they lose the hooks sometimes. the allman brothers on the other hand can never play for too long :p:

SGstriker
01-26-2007, 01:59 AM
The longer the better....and thats not supposed to sound kinky

jskinnirvana
01-26-2007, 09:59 AM
Perhaps it's just me, but I absolutely hate solos in classic rock songs that last longer than a few minutes. It seems to be that everyone in here thinks "the longer, the better". I just read a post in the Cream thread here that compared Hendrix-esque 20 minutes guitar solos to Clapton-esque 20 minute guitar solos. And then there's the drum solo. Moby Dick barely classifies as a song if you ask me.

My question is, personally, can a classic rock solo ever be too long?
Woah lol uve never seen footage of this song, Bonham plays with his hands which makes a nice bongo sound. And what about the Doors and Pink Floyd they have numerous 20 minute songs, and dont forget about the Grateful Dead man.

BrainDamage
01-26-2007, 03:24 PM
Woah lol uve never seen footage of this song, Bonham plays with his hands which makes a nice bongo sound. I think 20 minutes is excessive for a drum solo.
And what about the Doors and Pink Floyd they have numerous 20 minute songs, and dont forget about the Grateful Dead man. key word- songs.

ECwomantoneman
01-26-2007, 03:39 PM
Just sharing the same room as some of my favourite artists is good enough for me...

However a Drum solo is extremely boring if it exceeds 15 seconds, even if its Ginger Baker or John Bonham or even Keith Moon (even though he actually despised drum solos, one time when Daltrey said "Drum solo!", Keith just went "F**k off!!").

You can't get as many different notes or sounds from the drums as a guitar or bass or keyboard or whatever, which means less variety and more repetition, which ain't good.

and... Clapton's playing on Live Cream Vol. II's "Steppin Out", where it's total improvisation for a good 12 mins, is totally spellbinding, likewise with the (in)famous Live Spoonful, which is jamming for a similar length of time.

However the difference with Cream was that although they all went on different solos for a while, they'd bring it back to interacting (musically) each each other, which is what good jamming is (likewise with the Allmans)

claptonfan55
01-28-2007, 11:03 PM
As long as the solo doesn't get boring, they can play on for however long they want.

dk_rulz
01-29-2007, 07:58 AM
[Woah lol uve never seen footage of this song, Bonham plays with his hands which makes a nice bongo sound.]
[I think 20 minutes is excessive for a drum solo.]
lol

dk_rulz
01-29-2007, 07:59 AM
crap. Sorry about not using quotes there the first is by jskinnirvana and second quote by BrainDamage but anyway

LOL[I][U]

dk_rulz
01-29-2007, 08:00 AM
Arrggghhhh!!!!!

sirpsycho85
01-29-2007, 11:27 AM
it's not that as a rule i hate long solos, it's just i've almost never heard a good one go on for a long time, with very few exceptions.

forget about drum solos. i don't think i've ever enjoyed a rock drum solo. i've heard enjoyable jazz drum solos, but only when they're concise.

jac_murphy
01-29-2007, 03:35 PM
Arrggghhhh!!!!!

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode

-Jacques