#1
Hey, soz if this is in the wrong forum, but i was just wondering, does every song really need a solo???

Whats your views on this?
#2
Not necessarily....there are lot's of great songs without solos. Some guitarists think it provides a kind of climax to the song, hence it's always situated in the end. Your wish really.
#4
There seem to be alot of kids these days that think every song should have a solo in it. My view is that if the song would be improved by one then by all means play one, but if it doesn't need one, then don't put one in. I play for the song, not for myself, so to speak. I won't put one in just to look cool or otherwise.
Quote by Freddy_Walker
stevo 192 lol mate u a beast! Such a rebel!!!


'90 Fender P-bass lyte
Squier P bass special
Trace Elliot Series 6 head and cabs
Fender American Stratocaster
Vintage Teisco electric guitar
Fender princeton 650 dsp amp
#6
not everything NEEDS a solo. everything has got to fit the style or mood set by a band. bands like Metallica or Trivium, hell even Children of Bodom, you always want to hear shreddage. if a solo fits a song, then fine.
#8
o not every song needs a solo. There are a lot of amazing songs that don't have one.
Remember, a solo is like another verse.

Also, perhaps consider having solos using different instruments maybe? Piano etc.
#11
does every song NEED a solo? by all means no. do i want MY songs to have them? HELL YES!!!! tons of bands dont do solos, don't put one in JUST to have one in but at the same time if you can write one that sounds good and improves the songs then why not?
#12
Quote by Wonthefu
Bass.



Bass solo? They have those??


lol j/k

I gave piano as an example simply as id just heard a piano solo.
#13
it doesnt need a solo but if u want yr song to not be boring put a solo in it.... its a good way to add a point of emphasis, climax and allows u to create a point of interest in which after the mind has grasped the rythem properly u bust out a solo and hopefuloly blow their mind... ive never thought a song was worth much with out a solo
#14
Not all songs need solos. Its all down to preference, personally for me the solo is the best part of any song and is the basis for 90% of determining whether i like it or not. This is why i love classic rock and SRV and hate indie music and bands with crappy/no solos like arctic monkeys or oasis.
#15
Quote by clement1
Not all songs need solos. Its all down to preference, personally for me the solo is the best part of any song and is the basis for 90% of determining whether i like it or not. This is why i love classic rock and SRV and hate indie music and bands with crappy/no solos like arctic monkeys or oasis.


Since when did Oasis not have solos in their songs?
Strat / SH-201 -> DOD Mixer -> ZVex Mastotron -> Fulltone Clyde -> BYOC OD II -> Ibanez FLL -> VS Chorus -> DOD FX 96 -> Boss DD-6 -> MXR 10-Band EQ -> Boss RC-2 -> Stereo Mixer -> Alesis PicoVerb -> Peavey Delta Blues 210/Yamaha Fifty112
#16
Quote by seedmole
Since when did Oasis not have solos in their songs?



They do but thays why i said 'crappy/no solos' and not just 'no solos'.
#17
No.
Quote by Johnljones7443
my neew year reslosutions are not too drikn as much lol.

happy new yeeae guyas.
#19
I'd say there are songs that are just hungry for a solo, and there are also songs where a solo just wouldn't fit. I guess you should just trust ur feelings and u'll know which song needs one and which doesn't
Edwards LP 92CD
Marshall MG100dfx
#20
as i said before a solo isn't needed, but at the same time it can make a decent song good or a good song great. which is why i take as much time as i need for a solo, if i think i nailed it on the first take then i'll keep it and listen to it daily for a week or 2, if it passes the 2 week mark without me thinking "oh its not as cool as it was" then i keep it. if i gotta do 400 takes and spend 3 weeks trying out different parts till i find one that i think is perfect then thats what i'll do. i'd say just try putting one in if it ends up after awhile (several weeks, 3 or 4) you think "you know, i just like it better without a solo" then don't force it.
#21
A better question: Does ANY song need a solo?

I mean, is it a solo guitar piece with rhythm accompaniment? Or is it an ensemble piece?
Quote by Godzilla1969
I love you, Muphin. You have great taste in music.

Quote by Pacifica112J
Muphin > You

The Cooperation
#23
I dont think every song needs a solo...but I dont like to
listen to a whole album without one. If you have that..
why have a lead guitarist...or even a band? You just
have a singer with permanent house band.
I bet Charlie Brown's teacher's name was Mrs.Hammett
#24
Quote by Muphin
A better question: Does ANY song need a solo?

I mean, is it a solo guitar piece with rhythm accompaniment? Or is it an ensemble piece?


minimally all a song needs is a voice singing, thus its a song. if its just instrumental then its just considered a composition and merely requires a singular instrument to play it (any instrument). so to answer your question, no, it just needs someone to sing.
#26
minimally all a song needs is a voice singing, thus its a song


the voice, however, is an instrument and you'd then have a vocal solo.

I'll put my answer this way, every song needs a melody (in western music).
#27
^ well yes and no. if it has vocals its a song. if it doesn't have vocals then its considered a composition. i look at the voice as being an instrument too, but in the technicality of it in musical laymens terms i believe what i originally posted is about as accurate as you can be. and yes, every song definately needs a melody of some type, even if its not repetitive as melodies often are (unless you're yoko ono, then you dont even need to sing in key)
#28
only if you want it to rock!

(iron maiden)
Quote by MakinLattes
dwelling on past mishaps is for the weak. you must stride into the future, unabashed and prepared to fuck up yet again.
#29
hmmm tbh i think bands that have a solo in all of their songs kinda kill the novelty, okay there's the exceptions lyk guns and roses who have a **** load of solos and still have solos lyk sweet child and november rain etc stickin out as ****in amazing. but the majority of the time a band who rapes solos sillyways kind of makes them less special.
e.g AFI - dancing through sundays, not the most amazing solo but it stands out wouldnt u say cus its like their only 1
#30
Simple test: Does the song sound better with or without the solo?

That's really all there is to it.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#31
If you can't fit a solo into a song by any means, as in it just does not sound good anywhere. You could try some call-and-response between the vocalist and the lead guitar. Improvise some quick fills around the verse for some extra embellishment if want you want to solo in the song.
#32
Quote by Archeo Avis
Simple test: Does the song sound better with or without the solo?

That's really all there is to it.


Indeed. Whatever suits the song best.
DANNY

Quote by kevinm4435 to some guy
hey d00d i herd u dont like shred u r a genius 4 thinkin dat. all shred is fukin lame wit no soul u no wat im sayin??
#33
Does every song need a solo? I don't know. Does it really matter?
X JAPAN
yoshiki.toshi.pata.hide.heath/taiji


---------------


"desert rose, why do you live alone..." - yoshiki