Is it possible to have a good band without an innovative guitar player?

Is it possible to have a good band without an innovative guitar player?

Attached: AFCDC480-6387-49AB-B828-8A8BB72D70F3.jpg (616x440, 40.71K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/rNN6RuDnMjU
youtu.be/-Hx72I0dTOI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Attached: Creedence_Clearwater_Revival_1968.jpg (842x641, 118.53K)

Ok interesting. Didn’t think of them.

The reason I ask is that I follow some guitarists on Instagram and they’re really good and I often think why can’t they make up a song if they are this good?

I know, it wasn’t intended to seem like he isn’t

Guitar is a weak instrument
Drums make or break a song

the songwriting was solid enough to overcome the lack of technicality
similar to the beatles

Ok... that’s not what I asked though. Why can’t a great guitarist like all those guitar store employees and Instagram guys not write a song or catchy guitar part of they are that good?

What does that mean?

Say a song like “who’ll
Stop the rain?” How could a great guitarist not come up with that combo of
Chords and the little riff?

Cause they suck and just want to wank cause they spent 300 hours learning how to sweep instead of doing something productive

Writing a song without a bass player or drummer is like building a house without a foundation.

oasis
soundgarden
violent soho
the offspring
pearl jam

Nah nah, this guy was in Ryan Adams band, he’s good, but for
Some reason hasn’t made his own songs..

Lol ok 99% of songs are writttenbefore bass and drums are added

This list is not helping

technicality in guitar technique and performance is different from a deep understanding of theory and songwriting
fogerty isn't a bad guitarist, he's no blackmore, vai, or satch either
guess which one has better songs

What do you mean? Surely
Those others understand theory as well.

I didn’t say bad, I said innovative

>he doesn’t understand the concept of music production

fuck off retard

Skill, creativity and originality are three different things which sometimes overlap.

I just don’t get how if you are a great guitar player you cant come up with a simple lick

Cope

Yeah, but it may help if you have one. Mötley Crüe wouldn’t be half the band it was if not for their guitar player. But the Beatles for example didn’t need one really good guitar player and instead used a handful of good songs writers

Attached: 203EB6C1-4909-4C80-8938-0EA35209DF66.jpg (720x518, 119.07K)

Obviously has never seen slap guitar. Sorry you're listening to time traveler dad rock.

Most good bands don't have a guitar player, so yes.

Attached: ED8RAMnXoAAvlY8.jpg (640x628, 39.64K)

Depends on your definition of good band, but when you think about it, there has only been a handful of innovative guitar players. The rest is derivative stuff, maybe technically talented or creative in a way of using screwdrivers to play it, but that's not exactly innovative, just a side step.

Ok, fair point. So what makes one good guitar player able to come up with a seemingly simply catchy riff while
Another technically good guitarist maybe and even better one can’t come up with anything?

good thing the musical analog of a house without a foundation is very popular and enjoyable to a lot of people

Different mentality. Sometimes catchy isn't the goal, maybe the composition isn't riff based.

Yes of course. Good music is about how things sound together... there are many talented guitarists who nobody cares about because as a collective whole its not enjoyable. take something like Mazzy Star that uses super simple guitar parts and piece everything else together and you have a great band.

Attached: mazzy_star_071513.jpg (685x513, 86.21K)

based

Blackmore

blackmore

the stooges
ramones
pixies
dinosaur jr
modest mouse

all bands that had good guitar players, but weren't really innovative.

Johnny Ramone and Ron Asheton were definitely i innovative

So it's about taste and selection.

primus

I know LaLonde isn't exactly innovative, but he's easily on par with Claypool and Alexander in terms of talent.

ELP didn't need a guitar player at all (though Lake did throw in a guitar solo on a handful of tracks). But admittedly that's a rare exception to the norm since being a god-tier keyboardist that can lead like that is much more challenging and uncommon than being a great guitarist

King Crimson

youtu.be/rNN6RuDnMjU

Playing guitar and song writing are separate skill sets.

technically, the only requirement for writing a song is vocals, and there are plenty of pure vocal compositions out there

but you can write a song without vocals and still produce emotion
youtu.be/-Hx72I0dTOI

a song needs vocals, that's why it's called a song, needs someone to sing, otherwise it's just an instrumental

Metallica, Duster, Algernon Cadwallader, The Beatles

yes, sure, but there are guys who are great at guitar, play all the Smiths tracks perfectly but can't come up with anything equal.

Of course, not every genre even needs guitars

This post is false

The Smiths were 90% Morrissey

no it's not, calling instrumental songs is just a case of semantic widening

Slow down there, pal. The Smiths were 55% Morrissey

40% Morrissey
40% Marr
10% Rourke
10% Joyce

kek

Nah the smiths were 90% Morrissey.

They were is backing band, Morrissey just hadn't decided to go by his name yet.

The Smiths were definitely his band.

Rourke never gets enough credit

Attached: file.png (520x422, 242.88K)

Yeah, the Smiths were all Morrissey but the music behind it was all Marr and the boys.

Why would he?

He accompanied on bass.

Morrissey came up with the name, the image, the sleeves, approved all the musical choices.

No doubt the others played their part but it was the Morrissey show.