Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I'm presently recording my demo CD and am finding that I cannot play the kind of guitar solos that I want to play. I mean, come on, I'm a Slash fan! There are lots of bands that are awesome that create great rock music without guitar solos (The Rolling Stones, The Ramones, etc) but I feel like I'm cheaping out by leaving solos out of my tunes. Some of them will have the best solos I can do (emotional but speedy), but others may have to go without.

My question is, does a tune without a solo still rock? I don't want to appear lazy but if it can't be done...

Please let me know your thoughts.

Only if the song calls for a solo, don't just put in a solo for the sake of putting in a solo.


Look at the Immigrant song by led zeppelin, no solo there and that song rocks hard.

The Immigrant Song did have a solo live, and it sounded better for it.
The lesson is, always put in a solo.

a good solo almost always puts something extra to a song

Ok, thanks guys. I guess I'll just do what I feel is best for the art. No use inserting a shit solo just for the sake of including one...

IMO Jimmy's solo he did on the bbc sessions for immigrant song is so out of place, its a bit pointless.

i dunno its just me but ithink its better without the solo.

You should record a version with, and one without a solo,if you're in doubt, and then you should get a clue about what works best for that song...

Take tommy's album for instance, that isn't full of guitar solos, and it's still amazing.
He does have a lot of licks and stuff underneath it all though.

buy contraband dude... there's lots of slash songs without solo  : ok:

 :peace:

A solo dosnt dictate how well you can play. there are many songs without solos that stick rock hard. A lot of Nirvana's stuff was solo-less (I'm not sayin kurt was a good guitarist, far from it) but look how popular they were with their memriable material.

I personally doesn't always include a guitar solo in my songs when recording them, but my music is alternative, not hard rock like GNR, I bet that if you are making rock music like Guns you better have some cool solos or it will kind of lack the aggression and passion factor.

By the way I love STP's first album and it has no solos in any song.

Rock is all about the solos... If you don't have solos ur going to sound like Lame Bizkids or Stinkin' Park.. OR your song must be so cool with such a catchy riff that nobody notices ;D
Solos don't necessarily have to be fast, The first and second November Rain solos are easy and they rock, so...

Throw in as many guitar solos in one song as possible.  : ok:

lol, actually I don't agree. Throw in a guitar solo when nececary, if the song itself is strong enough, the lyrics the whole vibe, then it is possible to do without a guitar solo.

Solos are essential. It's the climax of the song! All of the greatest bands ever knew how to do solos. The Stones won't be remembered the way Zep and Sabbath are...

Solos are good when called for, and even then Slash solos are only good when called for, different songs need different solos, and some songs dont need any solos.  Take the Black Crowes for instance, Amorica and Southern Harmony have some of the best TBC solos ever played by Marc Ford, and then listen to By Your Side, its just Rich Robinson, the RYTHM guitar player on the album, some have no solos and some have Rich doin what he does!  and if you really want solos you dont think you can pull off, get yourself a lead guitar player, theres no shame in it at all, plenty of awesome guys play ryhtm in a band, Keith Richards, Rich Robinson, IZZY STRADLIN, and they pretty much wrote all the songs.  I'm a Slash fan too, love that crazy drunken bastard and everything he does, but I cant pull off those leads, so I went out and found me a Lead Guitar player and my band is all the better for it.  I write the songs, he plays the solos, they're still MY songs.
Just my 2 cents
Later
Chris

Bullshit, the Stones are possibly the Greatest Rock n Roll band ever, better than Sabbath, and IMO equal with Zep!!!

I think a song can still rock hard without a solo. As much as I love a good solo not every song calls for one.

Obviously not - but at the same time u need some really great lyrics or a killer riff to compensate, a solo gives some variety, breaks the routine up. Of course it doesn't always work, the solo doesn't need to be that pronounced but if ur doing rock n' roll i'd say it has its place.

there are plently of awesome songs without solos, do what you feel is right for each song.

+5 ..do what feels right & shouldn't be a matter of debate for your decide.   Feel it man!!  & sure, you can do with & without...    there are no rules

-BP

I agree with everything, but then again i think that there willalways be a solo that can fit any song! you just gotta get someone good enough to pull it off every time : ok:

LOL, are you joking?  Everybody knows the Stones.... for fuck`s sake I went to a concert with almost half a million people there to see them.

Anyways, I agree with the person who said try putting a solo in and checking how it sounds... a good solo can make a song, but a bad solo can also spoil it.  Don`t ruin what you`ve got for the sake of following some rule about including a solo.

I'd say a solo isn't essential, but get one in where you can and where it feels right.  Maybe if you have a song with a really strong rhythm or riff it could stand on its own two feet, wheras you may have a song where you think it needs some help in the guitar department and a good solo would make a big difference.  Ultimately, if you think it sounds good then do it!

i like solos. Though i do like what nu-metal bands did earlier this decade with the whole part whgere they go really heavy and shout and stuff. For example Linkin parks- one step closer. The part where he does the "shut up when im talkin to you" part, i like heavy parts. But i think judging by music at the moment solos seem to be popular again.

"The Stones won't be remembered the way Zep and Sabbath are..."

Yeah. They just infliuenced 90% of artists that came after them, their last tour was seen by more than 1 million people, they have 32 studio albuns, they have 40+ years of carreer and they simply fucking rock. Apart from that, they are a preety uknown band

well said

Well, the clowns over at Nickleback and co. suck my left testicle. And they never solo, nor can they for that matter.  Fucking Canadian pussies.

Yeah common guys put a solo in a song for once. But u can't can u cos ya suck

is that a reply to me?

Kinda yeah. Nickleback would be a decent rock band if they put a solo in their songs.