Is Guitar Rock Dead?

[Chuck Rosenberg]

Chuck:
>It seems that the punk attitude has once again become popular--little or
no
>solos. They are thought to be self-indulgent, I think, and not sincere.

So they say. But this is hardly a *new* phenomena -this has been the way of
playing rockmusic since Nirvana's big break-through in -91.

I meant that it was _relatively recent_. I consider '91 to be relatively
recent.

I think it's good that the bands dare to question what is a essential a
part
of the music and what that is not.

Same here.




That wasn't my point at all. It's just that idealistic extremist punk bands
seem to think anything other than a 2-second lead, ANYWHERE in the song, is
sacrilege. If they don't like convention, why are they restricting
themselves by refusing to play leads? I don't care if they do or they
don't. I like some punk/HC. But, you know, there are all kinds of ways of
being close-minded and musically restricted, and sometimes those ways are
cloaked with the appearance of being just the opposite...



And honestly, do any of you miss the exposure of guitarrists like Yngwie
Malmsteen..?


I don't see why you had to bring up the wankers. I just like some lead
guitar, Zappa, Huy, Buck, even Brocky pulls off a nice simple little lead
now and then.

But all this is yesterdays news in Europe (at least in
Sweden),alternative/grunge/whatever is only a big thing in the US right now
and I think it's hard to say what will be the next trend.
Industrial Metal in the shape it has right now will probably not grow so
much bigger, but it's not impossible that it turns to some kind of a
techno-industrial metal hybrid later on.
With or without solos. ;-)

> I
>don't know why. I think solos (leads) can be just as moving for the
>listener as for the musician.

Agree. But not _always_.


Right. That's why I wrote "can be". I usually don't care for "solos" (as in
only the guitar), anyway, but leads that are in tune with a song...or maybe
not in tune...whatever...
                        -Daniel


Charlie