Page 1 of 2
#1
... prefer to play rhythm guitar than lead?

I'm mainly a rhythm player (rock and metal) and some people tell me that I'm not good because I don't play fast solos. Actually I can play lead guitar too (I'm not a shredder of course, but I can handle simple and medium solos), but I simply PREFER to play rhythm because I like it and I find it more funny. What should I do with these people? They know nothing about guitar and they believe that rhythm is always easy and soloing always difficult...
#2
A good Rhythm guitarist is just as valuable as a good lead player, but more importantly the two have to be able to work together in a band with two guitarists.

I play a combination of both, however, I rarely play rock music. Mostly I play folk, roots, bluegrass, and other acoustic fingerstyles.
#3
slap the asses of them. I agree Rhythm is more fun to play. I'm not a shredder either, but I can bust a few moves out on guitar
#4
Quote by skeptopotamus
A good Rhythm guitarist is MORE valuable as a good lead player.


Fixed.

You don't generally have songs without a rhythm part.
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote by Master Foo
“A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.”


Album.
Legion.
#5
Quote by skeptopotamus
A good Rhythm guitarist is just as valuable as a good lead player, but more importantly the two have to be able to work together in a band with two guitarists.

What he said.
If I took this cigarette and put it out on you...


...would you love me?
#6
Do some shred riffing, crazy fast and intricute rhythm will teach em. If you can manage some string skipping, advanced chords etc etc it will be just as impressive, if not more so, than a solo.

Origionaly Posted by CTFOD
Origionaly Posted by hownowbrowncow:
Get a new bicycle
Then you can ride it with no handlebars.

No handlebars.

No handlebars...
#7
Rhythm is more fun to pick up and play, but it's pretty satisfying to be able to nail some solos.
I play by my own rules. And I have one rule; There are no rules... but if there are, they're there to be broken. Even this one.


Confused? Good.

Quote by CrucialGutchman
Sigs are wastes of my precious screen space.

^ Irony

Quote by RevaM1ssP1ss
LET ME HUMP YOU DAMMIT
#8
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Fixed.

You don't generally have songs without a rhythm part.

When will people learn- there is no single most important part of a band.
#9
Quote by skeptopotamus
When will people learn- there is no single most important part of a band.


Find me one song with no rhythm part.
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote by Master Foo
“A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.”


Album.
Legion.
#10
Quote by skeptopotamus
When will people learn- there is no single most important part of a band.


Actually, he's right. There are plenty of songs you can play without lead, but few that don't require rhythm.
I play by my own rules. And I have one rule; There are no rules... but if there are, they're there to be broken. Even this one.


Confused? Good.

Quote by CrucialGutchman
Sigs are wastes of my precious screen space.

^ Irony

Quote by RevaM1ssP1ss
LET ME HUMP YOU DAMMIT
#11
Quote by skeptopotamus
When will people learn- there is no single most important part of a band.
Never but even a bassist that play only the root note of the chords is important.
#12
Firslty, ignore any negative comments that are thrown your way unless they (in anyway) can help improve your playing. In my opinion the only person's opinion that should matter to you is your own, if you're satisfied with your playing then thats all that matters. Again, ignore those foo's..... Failing that, ask them to play something epic for you and take the piss out of them for not being able to play anything.

Secondly, .... you find rhythm guitar more "funny"??
#13
I don't mind playing rhythm, but you can bet your sweet ass I'm going to solo at some point in the song.
Quote by SteveHouse
This thread is officially about sucking Sleaze off for a sig.


Quote by tayroar
Hey Sleaze I'll give you a blowjob if you sig me. Maybe even some nudey photos?


Quote by crazy8rgood


Sleaze, that made me lulz in my pants.


Quote by 36mikeyb36
hahaha Sleaze i'd give you my mom for that one.
#14
Quote by Poglia
Never but even a bassist that play only the root note of the chords is important.


Not really, you could acheive the same effect with a pedal. Bassists who only play root notes should be ashamed of themselves.
I play by my own rules. And I have one rule; There are no rules... but if there are, they're there to be broken. Even this one.


Confused? Good.

Quote by CrucialGutchman
Sigs are wastes of my precious screen space.

^ Irony

Quote by RevaM1ssP1ss
LET ME HUMP YOU DAMMIT
#15
to be honest, I don't even like guitar solos in most music styles.. (metal being an exception of course)
#16
Quote by break-me-in
Actually, he's right. There are plenty of songs you can play without lead, but few that don't require rhythm.

Drums? Bass? Whatever happened to them. Guitars are not the only thing that a musician can hear a rhythm from.
#17
I'm scared of even attempting leads, no confidence to actually even learn solo's.
I get intimidated by them.

I'd like to think i'm an okay rhythm player though.

Epiphone Les Paul Standard w/ SD Alnico Pro II's
Fender Aerodyne Telecaster & Stratocaster
Marshall JCM 800 4104 combo


E-Married to Funny_Page
#18
Theres no rule that means rythm is easier than lead.

Par example, i expect most people would find playing Necrophagists rythms a lot harder than playing many of Metallicas leads
Quote by Shred Head
You have an atrocious sense of humour!

Quote by StrayCatBlues
You win 100 hilarity points.

Spend them wisely.


Quote by GrisKy
you're a funny, funny man, chimp in a tux... funny indeed.
#19
I play both considering I write a good portion of the guitar parts. I write all the solos for my band and most of the rhthem.

Just cause you don't play a solo fast doesn't mean it's good. Listen to "For the love of god" by Steve Vai it's very slow and melodic. I mean it has it's fast parts but is slow mostly.

Most good hooks in a solo are done slowly. Arch Enemy is another good example because a lot of their solo's start out slow and work it's way into crazy ****...
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all
#20
No one will say anything if you play really tight rhythms. I know a lot of guys who think they are the best, but play sloppy rhythm and no solos. Just advance with your own tempo and tell them to gtfo and get an instrument, you're the one that plays and knows more things about music than them.
#21
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Find me one song with no rhythm part.

cliffs of dover, no rythm guitar i think
eruption
#22
Quote by skeptopotamus
Drums? Bass? Whatever happened to them. Guitars are not the only thing that a musician can hear a rhythm from.


We're referring to specifically guitar-based songs, because otherwise we wouldn't be debating rhythm or lead. There are many more songs with no lead part than songs with no rhythm part.
I play by my own rules. And I have one rule; There are no rules... but if there are, they're there to be broken. Even this one.


Confused? Good.

Quote by CrucialGutchman
Sigs are wastes of my precious screen space.

^ Irony

Quote by RevaM1ssP1ss
LET ME HUMP YOU DAMMIT
#23
Learn jazz and own everybody at both.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#24
Quote by chimpinatux
Theres no rule that means rythm is easier than lead.

Par example, i expect most people would find playing Necrophagists rythms a lot harder than playing many of Metallicas leads


For a simpler example, One by Metallica has an easier lead than rhythm part.
I play by my own rules. And I have one rule; There are no rules... but if there are, they're there to be broken. Even this one.


Confused? Good.

Quote by CrucialGutchman
Sigs are wastes of my precious screen space.

^ Irony

Quote by RevaM1ssP1ss
LET ME HUMP YOU DAMMIT
#25
I'm overall much better at rhythm playing, and I really like doing it.

Sure, I like playing lead, but I'm still developing my lead playing...so it's more fun for me right now to play rhythm. I play some complicated rhythms sometimes, and that helps to develop dexterity for sure.

Basically, though, as has been said, you won't have a good track without a good rhythm as a base...be is a bass or a guitar (preferably both).

So yeah, I like playing rhythm more.
Oh no he just divided by zero again...*gets sucked into vortex*

Originally Posted by Sirwinston89
whoa man this is turning into the Dream Theater appreciation thread!!! If only every thread kicked this much ass!


You're welcome
#26
I actually don't care what part I play in songs. If it feels right, I take lead, if it doesn't I just do rythm. I don't really see why labeled to be honest, both parts are important to the music and should be valued as equal. Besides if someone who doesn't play an instrument is telling you how to play, simply hand them yours and tell them to play a solo right on the spot. Chances are they're just winey bitches who have no idea what they're talking about and they'll just prove that point by standing there looking like the asses they are.
Quote by die_kenny_die
ate a girl out on her period...

i regret nothing.


I know how to shred paper, does that count?
#27
I prefer rhythm, but I'd like to be able to play both. I've got the ability to play sweeps and whatnot, but my guitar is holding me back like crazy. I can't set the strings low because of all the damn fret buzz and I'm stuck in rhythm because I can't afford to get my guitar fixed. If my guitar could be set up for lead I'd already be able to play solos and everything! I learned to sweep a long time ago but I've never been able to go anywhere with it, it's very frustrating.
#28
A good balance of both is preferred but as most have said the band as a whole is what's important.
Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who...
Quote by Necrophagist777
I'm ORION, LORD OF EVIL, give me your soul and breathe in my darkness.

YOU WILL NOT ENJOY THIS......
╭∩╮( º.º )╭∩╮
#29
Quote by break-me-in
We're referring to specifically guitar-based songs, because otherwise we wouldn't be debating rhythm or lead. There are many more songs with no lead part than songs with no rhythm part.

I get what you're saying, but I still think you're looking at the elements of a song too closely. Yes, guitar forum, yes, guitar question, all I'm trying to get at is that rhythm and lead are of equal value. I'm definitely on the "I prefer to play rhythm" side of the spectrum, but I'm not about to boast about its higher importance to lead.
#30
I agree that rythm can be more fun.
About importance, you can leave it all behind or you can put it all in there. You should appreciate an instrument and it's way of playing for what it contributes to the song. If nothing, get rid of it. If you miss something, you should add something (that can be a way of playing or an instrument or whatever).
And of course some are more used than others. Take drums for instance, almost all bands have a form of percussion in it. Does that make the drum more or less important? No.
A song is the whole of everything that contributes to that song.

And play what you like. And you'll always be frustrated about not being appreciated for the music cause many ppl don't hear music. They don't hear more difference between "I kissed a girl" by katie perry and "Layla" by Clapton than they do between "Tainted Love" by Soft Cell and "SOS" by Rihanna. (In case you didn't notice cause nobody does, the music in the last 2 songs is identical).
Quote by Retro Rocker


....


haha

*wipes tear from eye*
Oh you're good.
#31
Quote by skeptopotamus
I get what you're saying, but I still think you're looking at the elements of a song too closely. Yes, guitar forum, yes, guitar question, all I'm trying to get at is that rhythm and lead are of equal value. I'm definitely on the "I prefer to play rhythm" side of the spectrum, but I'm not about to boast about its higher importance to lead.


Well it depends what song you're playing as to which guitar part is more important, but in the overwhelming majority of songs, rhythm is actually more central to the song, and the difference if it were taken away would be more noticeable.
I play by my own rules. And I have one rule; There are no rules... but if there are, they're there to be broken. Even this one.


Confused? Good.

Quote by CrucialGutchman
Sigs are wastes of my precious screen space.

^ Irony

Quote by RevaM1ssP1ss
LET ME HUMP YOU DAMMIT
#32
Quote by B.do
cliffs of dover, no rythm guitar i think
eruption


Eruption isn't a song.

Cliffs of Dover has several sections that I would consider to be "rhythm" parts and apart from the obvious solo section I'd say it's all pretty rhythmic anyway. Just because it's a single note part doesn't mean it's not rhythm.

Quote by Tapping_Ninja
Just cause you don't play a solo fast doesn't mean it's good. Listen to "For the love of god" by Steve Vai it's very slow and melodic. I mean it has it's fast parts but is slow mostly.


FTLOG also has a rhythm part anyway
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote by Master Foo
“A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.”


Album.
Legion.
#33
Quote by break-me-in
Well it depends what song you're playing as to which guitar part is more important, but in the overwhelming majority of songs, rhythm is actually more central to the song, and the difference if it were taken away would be more noticeable.
Agree.

BTW I play rock and metal songs: mostly power chords, riffs, palm muting stuffs and sometimes clean guitar parts (arpeggios, chords, etc). A rock/metal songs without a solo is ok, but without all these stuffs it will sound incomplete. And I can play some solos too. I'm not that technical but I still enjoy playing melodic solos sometimes.
#34
Quote by break-me-in
Well it depends what song you're playing as to which guitar part is more important, but in the overwhelming majority of songs, rhythm is actually more central to the song, and the difference if it were taken away would be more noticeable.

Sara Bareilles - Love Song and Katie Perry - I Kissed A Girl.
Only real difference is the lead (with which I mean the singing) there (I think, cause I always start singing the wrong song if they Love Song).
Nobody notices that those 2 songs are the same. So...
The lead is important too...

It's just a rediculous example, I know but
Sometimes the lead can take you to places that the rythm just hardly can. The rythm has to provide the basis and the lead can take you on from there . Respect the parts of a song for what they are. If they have a value, don't think that they are of less importance than the rest. In the music business (I know they aren't a good example of good music but meh) that can make thousands of dollars of difference in ur wallet. (not that I would know out of experience. I deducted that from interviews with artists).

The little things can make the bigger difference.
Quote by Retro Rocker


....


haha

*wipes tear from eye*
Oh you're good.
#35
I also prefer rhythm to lead, mostly because I'm really terrible at soloing. It's also more fun to play. I wish I was good enough to do both at the same time. I think Matt Bellamy does this pretty well.
#36
Yea you need a good rhythm guitarist to cover up the bass. (kidding). I prefer a good rhythm to a lead any day, I really dont like solos that are done without rhythm, takes away from the overall sound.
#37
I play both, me and the other guitarist from my band switch roles, and sometime we both play harmonized rhythm or lead together.
#38
Quote by Portuguese_boy
I play both, me and the other guitarist from my band switch roles, and sometime we both play harmonized rhythm or lead together.
I love it
#39
Many people don't realize that if you only had one guitarist, he couldn't do a purely lead-style. And it's near impossible to have two guitarists playing lead without it sounding like noise (though TRUE emo, as in from the 80s and 90s used some of this and it worked well). Someone has to be the foundation and someone else can do the fills. I actually hate how people give singers and lead guitarists all the glory but think nothing of rhythm, bass or drums.

I can't shred because I don't have the dexterity for it, but I don't care to be able to; I'd rather play rhythm and sing.
#40
Rhythm and Lead guitarists are nowhere near as cool on their own as they were when they're playing together. A good rhythm guitarist can give the lead guitarist a solid springboard from which to solo. Individually, they would both be boring (remove the band from the rhythm guitarist and he looks like an idiot strumming the same passages for 3 whole minutes, remove the band from the lead guitarist and he begins to look like an ass). The important part is that both are at their best playing with EACH OTHER.

But to answer TS' question, I preferred rhythm because a) I CANNOT keep up with my lead guitarist's skills in soloing and b) it's easier to demonstrate a song with chords than it is to plink out a complicated single-note melody.

Plus, you don't nearly have to spend much in terms of effects.
Quote by bigredbeast
how much is 15,000 PHP? I didn't know they played guitar in the Phillipines. I thought they played ukelele or something.


Because, of course, we're too far away from places with guitars and all that stuff so we play ukelele...
Page 1 of 2