Note for Note.... or not???

[jwoods986]

I played in a cover band 2-3 years ago back in VA. For the most part, I would try to nail the parts note-for-note because most of the songs are very familiar to people, or have signature riffs/solos, and they want to hear them done correctly (plus I'm kinda anal -lol). But there is room for adding your own flavor to certain songs. A good example is "Sharp Dressed Man". I would do the main solo exactly but for the outro I would start the way Gibbons plays it, then go off my own but try to keep the "feel/vibe" of the song.

[Big Al]

Very good points made in this thread. Some songs need the original solo, some are lame and need a better solo and some need a combination.

I am forty years old and do not have the time/memory to learn all solos note for note.

[jjw]

i think Big Al sums it up best!lol I am 35 and i havnt got the time or memory to learn solo's note for note..lol..i would have to learn every orignal song i have ever done too as they were all done in short term memory..anyway whats this thread about?i have forgot

[jjw]

actualy joking aside when JC came over to my house for a weekend last year he asked me to play some of my tunes for him..and i couldnt remember any of them!!lolthe only one i can do from startto finish is pedal to the metal as its a tech tune from start to finish

[followthereaper]

I like to learn/play note for note because not doing so makes me feel like I'm playing it sloppy. Another stranger reason is because I think of it as not being my song, therefore not having the right to change it.

[levantin]

I play in a band that writes originals, but we play some covers live. I try to learn most solos note for note, but it depends on the song and the context of the solo. For example, when playing Hangar 18, I try to nail those Friedman licks pretty much as they are on the record, and usually the crowd reacts well. On a Slayer song, nobody cares so I just follow the main melodic idea and shred the hell out of it.

[SEEGERMANY]

As a listener, I prefer solos as close as possible to the original. Hell, I even get pissed off when Ritchie Blackmore would noodle around on Highway Star.

[Strat God]

BARS:I like to nail "key" parts in a solo that I believe the crowd wants to hear.
Other than that I prefer to "OWN" the solo and make it mine. Drunk crowds don't give a shi+ anyway.

SHOWCASE: Must have it down perfectly. Different rules apply.

[demeyes]

There's some interesting ideas said already.
I play in a band that does some covers as well as our own tunes.
On the covers it really depends on the song. I like to hit the first few licks of a solo and end it the same but often I will improv a little in the middle sections. On some easier licks I will often put in a little run here and there or maybe pinch a few notes to make it more interesting for me to play. If you think you can equal or better the solo on the record than I say go for it on the more liberal tunes. There are of course a few songs that can't really be messed with though.
While some people improv their own because they can't play the original as someone mentioned, there is the other side of it too. Some people only play note for note because they lack the aility to improvise a solo to any real extent. That is a real skill that shows a guitarists true abilty on the instrument in my opinion.

[Super_shredder]

i guess what im playing, if im playing some malmsteen or shredy stuff then i would play it note for note but otherwise i would just improvise

[Soap]

For the record.. I am one of the note for note guys and I do it because I find personal pride and satisfaction in nailing famous guitar players tones and styles. I only embellish and change stuff around on our original songs.

+1
Me too.
You said it very well and I agree.

There are some cover songs that in fact allow room for embellishing if one did choice to do so. Ex. JP's "Pain Killer", the solo I love it but its long, actually too long but, thats besdies the point. One could most certainly tastefully throw some stuff in there and most wouldn't notice, making it alittle more fun and interesting for the player his or her self. I think if its one of those songs that have a longer the normal solo, one could do some embellishing as long as its done tasetfully, I won't gripe or complain.
BUT!! If its gonna change the original lead or solo into something completely different it doesn't matter how impressive the skills are, I'll jack slap your sorry self for not learning control and tempered and not being a team player. I'll can or drop you and find a replacement in heart beat!

You want an opportunity to solo to showcase your skills? Fine, no problem, we'll find a place in the set list so you can do so, but mess up a nice solo with all that senseless fancy arpeggioing and you'll be without a band. Then we'll see just how many nonkid cover bands will be tolerant and give you a place in the set list to solo your socks off. Very few, very few you will find.

Original tunes?
Embellish away, skys the limit, do your thing but DON'T ruin the original stuff with too much wanking either.

The solo?
In my view is to be constructed like a song in itself. Speak to me with the solo, tell a story, hook me and draw me in.
Grab my attention with a good ("intro"), now that you have my attention with a good intro, grab my nuts and take me some where with melody ("the middle"), bring it home ("the ending") like you mean it and with control and seasoned tempermant make me feel every note and anticipate every note as you conclude.

In all honesty, I gotta have more cowbell...

[Spidervenom]

I've never thought about it on a level of importance - to me, if I'm playing a note differently, I'm simply not playing that solo.

[hippietim]

It depends. As others have said, some songs have an identifiable solo - then you really should learn it pretty close. Others don't so you do whatever you want.

For me it's all about the song. One of my current bands is a cover band. I play some songs note for note and others I just wing it with a nod to the original. Heck, some of these songs don't even have guitar solos at all so it doesn't matter.

For me the harder thing to decide is how to cover two guitar parts in a tune. My cover band has a keyboard player so he tries to fill in parts and seems to be working ok. I've always been in two guitar bands so this is new to me.

[hippietim]

As a listener, I prefer solos as close as possible to the original. Hell, I even get pissed off when Ritchie Blackmore would noodle around on Highway Star.

Amen to that. The current Deep Purple with Steve Morse was torture to see. Morse sounds like total ass playing the old stuff. I was surprised by how little taste he showed by just wanking scales through Smoke On The Water - that song has such a classic solo, why would you fuck with that? We ended up leaving the show early - it was soooo awful.

[atomic charvel guy]

i never played in a cover band, i played other people's songs in the beginning practicing but always wrote tunes instead. Never played cover tunes, but would think to keep the crowd happy and still alive you'd better substitue something great if it isn't the solo from the song.