milod Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Awwwww.... C'mon Golem... Most of my gigs are "solo." You're saying I'm not doing a solo? Joe Pass wasn't playing "solo guitar?" m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golem Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 ` Awwwww.... C'mon Golem... Most of my gigs are "solo." You're saying I'm not doing a solo? Joe Pass wasn't playing "solo guitar?" m Right, you are NOT "doing a solo" when your GIG is solo ! But thaz not a knock. I'm just trying to keep to the original idea of the question in the thread title, of "What/when was the first guitar solo?" Yes, you ARE playing "solo guitar", as was JP. That question does NOT ask "how long ago" or "where and by whom" did some guitarist, lutist or whatever play his ax all by his lonesome. Why ask THAT question ? Everybody knows that the earliest example of some lone dood just plucking or strumming is lost and undocumented. Therefor, the question must be asking "How long ago" and "where and/or by whom" was the guitar FIRST given a boost in respect where it stepped out front to be featured, or IOW "given a solo". Clearly, you cannot be "featured" if you're the only player on the gig ! Likewise you cannot be "given a solo" if you just gave it to yourself cuz there's no one else around to give it to you. You wanna be "featured" or "highlighted" you've gotta have milieu to emerge out front of, not just out of a vacuum ! No ensemble = no solo. A solo performer [such as Joe Pass] is neither taking a solo nor being given a solo. So, yes, he is 'performing solo' but not playing 'a solo'. It's the "figure-and-ground" thing. a matter of context. A soloist temorarily "takes the lead" [or is given the lead. Well, the "leader" of a "band of one" is not leading anything. He may be a self actualized individual, but he is NOT a leader of anything or anyone. It's puzzling that it's not hugely self-evident that all the blather about "early players surely played alone" is just dodging the question. We all acknowledge that early players surely played alone. But ho-hum, we know that went on before history. There's no question there, cuz we know the answer is vague or no answer at all. Thus the only way to read the original question of the thread is : " When was the guitar first given that boost in respect where it stepped out front [of the band] and was featured, or IOW 'given a solo', and who did it ? " ` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golem Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 ` Awwwww.... C'mon Golem... Most of my gigs are "solo." You're saying I'm not doing a solo? Joe Pass wasn't playing "solo guitar?" m Right, thaz what I'm saying. You are NOT "doing a solo" when your GIG is solo ! But thaz not a knock. I'm just trying to keep to the original idea of the question in the thread title, of "What/when was the first guitar solo?" Yes, you ARE playing "solo guitar", as was JP. The question does NOT ask "how long ago" or "where and by whom" did some guitarist, lutist or whatever play his ax all by his lonesome. Why ask THAT question ? Everybody knows that the earliest example of some lone dood just plucking or strumming is lost and undocumented. Therefor, the question must be asking "How long ago" and "where and/or by whom" was the guitar FIRST given a boost in respect where it stepped out front to be featured, or IOW "given a solo". Clearly, you cannot be "featured" if you're the only player on the gig ! Likewise you cannot be "given a solo" if you just gave it to yourself cuz there's no one else around to give it to you. You wanna be "featured" or "highlighted" you've gotta have milieu to emerge out front of, not just out of a vacuum ! No ensemble = no solo. A solo performer [such as Joe Pass] is neither taking a solo nor being given a solo. So, yes, he is 'performing solo' but not playing 'a solo'. It's the "figure-and-ground" thing, a matter of context. A soloist temorarily "takes the lead", or is given the lead. Well, the "leader" of a "band of one" is not leading anything. He may be a self actualized individual, but he is NOT a leader of anything or anyone. It's puzzling that it's not hugely self-evident that all the blather about "early players surely played alone" is just dodging the question. We all acknowledge that early players surely played alone. But ho-hum, we know that went on before history. There's no question there, cuz we know the answer is vague or no answer at all. Thus the only way to read the original question of the thread is : " When was the guitar first given that boost in respect where it stepped out front [of the band] and was featured, or IOW 'given a solo', and who did it ? " ` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy R Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 ` Right, thaz what I'm saying. You are NOT "doing a solo" when your GIG is solo ! But thaz not a knock. I'm just trying to keep to the original idea of the question in the thread title, of "What/when was the first guitar solo?" Yes, you ARE playing "solo guitar", as was JP. The question does NOT ask "how long ago" or "where and by whom" did some guitarist, lutist or whatever play his ax all by his lonesome. Why ask THAT question ? Everybody knows that the earliest example of some lone dood just plucking or strumming is lost and undocumented. Therefor, the question must be asking "How long ago" and "where and/or by whom" was the guitar FIRST given a boost in respect where it stepped out front to be featured, or IOW "given a solo". Clearly, you cannot be "featured" if you're the only player on the gig ! Likewise you cannot be "given a solo" if you just gave it to yourself cuz there's no one else around to give it to you. You wanna be "featured" or "highlighted" you've gotta have milieu to emerge out front of, not just out of a vacuum ! No ensemble = no solo. A solo performer [such as Joe Pass] is neither taking a solo nor being given a solo. So, yes, he is 'performing solo' but not playing 'a solo'. It's the "figure-and-ground" thing, a matter of context. A soloist temorarily "takes the lead", or is given the lead. Well, the "leader" of a "band of one" is not leading anything. He may be a self actualized individual, but he is NOT a leader of anything or anyone. It's puzzling that it's not hugely self-evident that all the blather about "early players surely played alone" is just dodging the question. We all acknowledge that early players surely played alone. But ho-hum, we know that went on before history. There's no question there, cuz we know the answer is vague or no answer at all. Thus the only way to read the original question of the thread is : " When was the guitar first given that boost in respect where it stepped out front [of the band] and was featured, or IOW 'given a solo', and who did it ? " ` Most excellent! Very well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Nahum Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 I guess we also need to clarify what we mean by "solo". Does this mean simply playing guitar by yourself following a chart, or does it mean improvising possibly over some kind of backing? There was certainly solo guitar in the 1700s as in playing a chart by yourself: http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/Classical-Guitar-Treasury-Solo-Guitar/3852436 Louis Armstrong is generally credited with the idea of playing an improvised solo in a jazz context. Prior to that, jazz musicians soloed - but following a chart. Before jazz, there was improvisation. One style is the taqsim - long and elaborate improvised intros but played on the oud. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=56yJyyy1MEIC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=taqsim+on+guitar&source=bl&ots=FeBYk6kAns&sig=2KUpGHL5s9m_eCB9H7xaUCy2mGc&hl=en#v=onepage&q=taqsim%20on%20guitar&f=false What I am wondering then is whether there were improvisations on guitar. This article talks about improvisation over flamenco but seems to suggest that it is a new idea. http://prsync.com/hober-smith/flamenco-guitar-solo-article-17494/ RN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golem Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 ` Well RN, I kinda see your point here. To some degree, one COULD be "taking a solo" despite the absence of other players, if one is in a tradition where usually the solo performer was expected to play "by the book" ... yet one is now taking new liberties and improvising relative to "the book". I can see how such a player has not "stepped out" from an ensemble, yet has "stepped out", from a known and rather unchanging procession of prior performances by other players. Somehow, a rather hidebound tradition makes the other players sorta "present", even across time. Thanks for sharing. I can change my mind [partially]. Nevertheless, it still requires more than the simple absence of any other players on the stage to define "a solo". "Solo performance" is NOT synonymous with "Taking a solo". It's STILL about stepping out. ` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.