Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Why don't todays bands do solos like they used to?


Recommended Posts

+1 thanks matt


Everyone thinks their own generation had the best music. As if the 60s' date=' 70s, 80s, didn't have a single **** band, song or album. You gotta remember that when you're no longer part of the new generation it becomes harder to know where to find music that has any meaning or substance that isn't from your day. You think satellite radio is the source of avant-garde music for modern youth who don't follow mainstream media music? You think only your generation, mine, your dad's, had anything decent to offer? P-lease! The truth is NO ONE knows EVERY BAND on earth playing and making music NOW, so you and I can't say there are no decent solos being made. There are no POPULAR BANDS making good solos would be a less ignorant statement. To say the 90s had all sucky music and no decent solos is admitting you weren't listening to anything but top 40 back then, lmfao.

If you don't believe rock evolves, if you believe its a force that can be stopped, go back to enjoying to your old records, clearly you're out of touch.[/quote']

My generation sucks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply
our generation's popular music sucks. There are some bright spots. However few compared to the mounds of sh*t ppl(cough rappers cough) are releasing.


You have to dig pretty deep to find our bright spots, brother.


Bands like Wolfmother, Kings of Leon (OK, up to a certain point,) The Datsuns, The Fratellis, Silvertide, and The Answer, are fairly decent, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:Live Shows:

The Venues usually has an ordinance in place which restricts the length of time a a band can play.


With that' date=' Extended solo's are not what the majority of the paying patrons came to see.


Therefore, playing as many songs in their original format to give the best overall show possible.[/quote']


Absolutely Axe.


These days, the artist has to comply with a raft of provisions and conditions, going from volume, to time, to what they can and cant do on stage.


In Sydney, Australia, the artist can not drink or smoke on stage. If the set goes over time, the venue cops a whopping fine from the local government. The local yuppies who moved into inner city areas and renovated houses right next door to the venue, put a stop to it, due to our gutless councillors.


Its a bit like buying a house next to the airport and then complaining about the noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 90's in my opinion' date=' recharged an ailing and self conscious popular music industry and is the best song writing decade since the 1960's. So many interesting bands; Nirvanna, Radiohead, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, The Manic Street Preachers, Blur, Oasis...great stuff[cool']



Thank you!


The 90's was a great decade for music. "Recharged" is a great way of putting it... there were a lot of unique sounds and styles that were developed. Even though the 80's had some great rock bands, I had to hold my breath through most of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I'd disagree that we tend to prefer the music of our own generation.


What I find interesting is that even younger musicians than I am look back to the 30s, 40s and 50s "standards" because they're so melodic and truly timeless sorts of music. But that seems to be a function of maturation.


I thought the music of my youth was fun, and fun to play, but I always thought "deeper" music was pop/swing music of my parents' era, of "classical" music, blues, Flamenco and such.


I freely admit I don't listen to new stuff regardless of genre, but it's largely because there's so much old stuff I wanna get that I simply haven't time to listen to it. That perhaps is a weakness of music in that it's a time-dependent performance art, and yet... there's so much out there to hear and learn.


Yeah, I think solo swapping likely has gone out of style in most genres today - especially among those who work most faithfully to reproduce the sound of three-minute radio tunes. In a sense, I was there in the '60s myself. Our justification was that "this is how the Stones sounded on XXXXX, and that's how we should do it because of audience expectation."


That my be why that music prof/jazz guitarist suggested that Bluegrass is today's "jazz," country is today's "rock" and heaven knows what one might consider today's "rock."


It's almost more of a difficulty in definition than anything else.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you are saying is that the pub owners' date=' afraid of being fined by the authorities, who were put in office by the yuppies are shaping the way music is performed live? I'm not buying that. [/quote']


That's sarcasm I hope right?:-k

We have many,many pubs/venues closing down(The Annandale,which is a music institution for local and O/S bands comes to mind)because of this very reason. I saw a lot of the pubs/venues in the '90's give way to poker machines(you call them slot,we call 'em pokies)which effectively cut out a lot of bands from the loop.More money in them than bands they figured=greed again.

Flash forward to this decade when everyone started screaming out for a change and return to the good ol' days of going out to see a band and having a great night,and they found that mountain was a way lot harder climbing back up than coming down. I believe the US has a much better music scene. We did,but have just never really recovered from ignorance,stupidity and greed-always the greed.

I would truly hate to be in a band nowadays and try to find venues to play,let alone make a living(?).[-(

But I do hold out hope.[biggrin]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's sarcasm I hope right?[biggrin]

Of course, but at the same time, not really.

I think you are right though, it all comes down to the might dollar (or Pound, Euro, Dinar, Yen or what ever). Radio airtime is what sells music for the record labels, and since the radio stations won't play songs longer than 3 or 4 minutes (audience attention span), it forces the artists to cut their music down to that time frame in order to get it played and therefore sold. I think back in the day, bands like Led Zep or the Stones or VH did not have to worry about airtime, they were going to get it regardless; therefore they had the artistic freedom to expand on their music when playing live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now they have the internet to compete with which they just cannot.

It used tomake me split my guts laughing when labels came out in defence of "their" artists and "their" reportoire and slam illegal downloading and the mp3 formats that were directing all the money away from them.

Do you know how many cents in a $ that would actually be funnelled back to any given artist? Try between 5-10 cents depending on the artist.

Now we have iTunes and the like and a myriad of other ways to get yourself out there eg. myspace,and get close to 99c in the $.

People are/should be more savvy these days and don't have to take what's thrown at them. We now have bargaining power and that's a very powerful thing to have.


A thought - why don't sharks attack record label CEO's? Respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...