He's one of the best guitar players as we know but why didn't he showcase more of what he could do with the guitar in his studio work. I listen to a song like guitar and the guitar solo is so underwhelming compared to what he could do live. Same with most of his songs.. I don't think he has enough memorable guitar solos in his work considering he's one of the best guitar players.

He could've had way more memorable guitar solos in his music if he wanted..

[Edited 2/4/17 13:57pm]

scorp84 said:

The energy isn't the same when it's not captured in front of a room full of living and breathing individuals in the moment.

But Hendrix and Santana made that transition perfectly why could't Prince make it as well?

You have to be kidding. Are you really disappointed because he didn't run through the blues scale in 32nd notes enough for you? Prince soloed in every scale ever created, and did it as well as anyone I know of.

Prince's guitar work was 10 levels above everyone else's, in the studio or live. Get some excellent speakers and a decent system and listen to any album you want, turned up loud. Or listen through high-quality headphones.

There's so much going on in every Prince song. Maybe you just haven't heard it all.

RodeoSchro said:

You have to be kidding. Are you really disappointed because he didn't run through the blues scale in 32nd notes enough for you? Prince soloed in every scale ever created, and did it as well as anyone I know of.

Prince's guitar work was 10 levels above everyone else's, in the studio or live. Get some excellent speakers and a decent system and listen to any album you want, turned up loud. Or listen through high-quality headphones.

There's so much going on in every Prince song. Maybe you just haven't heard it all.

I find his guitar solos buried in the mix far less memorable than what he played live. Just curious.. what's your top 5 Prince guitar solos in studio.

scorp84 said:

The energy isn't the same when it's not captured in front of a room full of living and breathing individuals in the moment.

Funny thing is, I think generations from now P'll be studied by future scholars and since they'll have no live performance, except on video, to compare it to they'll think the studio stuff is awesome.

purpleshadow said:

I actually think the OP has a point. There are great solos scattered amongst Prince's studio output, but for the most part and as a guitarist myself, I get far more from his rhythm playing, than I do his lead work. That's not to say he wasn't a great lead guitarist, but there are really very few examples of it in his work outside of a live setting.

Purple Rain solo is simple, but so effective and emotive and is one of the best examples of his lead work, although various different live performances over the years have bettered the album version. Last December has a fantastic latter half, especially when he goes all Santana-esque. I've always loved his solo on I Will and Crimson & Clover as well. And this may prove to be a controversial choice, but even his lead line at the end of Mr Nelson really pops!

But for every great solo, there are examples I could think of where I am underwhelmed. As OP pointed out, when you have a song called "Guitar", you've really got to bring your A-game to the table, and a few tasty blues licks really don't cut it tbh. And then you have frustrating examples like Joy In Repetition or most of the Lovesexy album, where there is some great lead guitar solos, completely lost in the mix.

[Edited 2/5/17 1:26am]

RodeoSchro said:

Prince soloed in every scale ever created, and did it as well as anyone I know of.

Prince's guitar work was 10 levels above everyone else's, in the studio or live.

.

How can I put this in a way so as not to offend or unnerve...
I'm afraid your knowledge of music, scales and guitarists are rather limited.

Prince was an amazingly gifted all-around musician, composer, producer etc, etc. And an amazingly giving person, as we've only just started to learn about his obsessive philantrophy work.

He was an excellent guitarist too and I love his playing just as much as I love Hendrix or Santana or Jeff Beck or other greats – but don't fool yourself thinking that these (mainly) rock guitarists are anywhere near the leage of giants like John McLaughlin, Attila Zoller, Pat Metheny etc (I could go on for ages).

I admire Prince for a lot of things but when you're examining him only as a guitar player, he was good, but very far from being near the greatest ones. AND IT'S OK. It doesn't take away anything from what a truly unique and amazing wonder he was.

scorp84 said:

The energy isn't the same when it's not captured in front of a room full of living and breathing individuals in the moment.

That's a great point! Still, if I could make a wish list of stuff Prince did in performances that I'd love to have more of (or to be more prominent) on studio stuff, guitar would show up a lot.

That's just as a simple minded fan--I'm not a musician. Also, Prince was over the top in how much he gave as an artist. I'm just enjoying this discussion for fun. I surely don't mean to seriously suggest that Prince should have given more than he did.

With my nonmusician nature showing, may I ask if anyone else loved live performances of Endorphinmachine? If so, did anyone else wish the guitar was more prominent in the studio version?

rednblue said:

scorp84 said:

The energy isn't the same when it's not captured in front of a room full of living and breathing individuals in the moment.

That's a great point!

.

Might sound great but actually the opposite is true. Playing for an audience, in most cases, negatively effects how you play because you either feel pressured by their expectations or you get carried away by the response and you start playing for them like a bad actor, instead of going inside and playing what your soul dictates. When the crowd is cheering you're tempted to play your flashier licks and you're thinking of girls wetting their panties by seeing you instead of thinking about what you want to express through your music.

So for the untrained ears you'll end up sounding more bombastic, while what you've played is more of a showoff than truly inspired music.

KaresB said:

rednblue said:

That's a great point!

.

Might sound great but actually the opposite is true. Playing for an audience, in most cases, negatively effects how you play because you either feel pressured by their expectations or you get carried away by the response and you start playing for them like a bad actor, instead of going inside and playing what your soul dictates. When the crowd is cheering you're tempted to play your flashier licks and you're thinking of girls wetting their panties by seeing you instead of thinking about what you want to express through your music.

So for the untrained ears you'll end up sounding more bombastic, while what you've played is more of a showoff than truly inspired music.

Love your reply and the way you put it into words! As a side note, it's interesting that more than one musician in Prince's band has told of Prince counseling them to take, for lack of a better phrase, more of a "don't pull out all the stops" approach when he calls for a solo.

Sorry to be pushy, but do you like Endorphinmachine? How do you feel about the studio vs. live versions?

rednblue said:

do you like Endorphinmachine? How do you feel about the studio vs. live versions?

.
I prefer the live version too, but I guess the main difference is that when he was mixing the studio take he was going for a more refined, a bit more radio-friendly sound.

That is what I hate about 'Fury' – the album version, in my opinion, is so far from that biting, raw energy and funkiness of the live version he perfomed on a TV show. Even the rhythmic feel of the album version is quite different. There's a far bigger difference between these than between the versions of Endorphinmachine.

[Edited 2/5/17 6:23am]

scorp84 said:

KaresB said:

rednblue said:

.
I prefer the live version too, but I guess the main difference is that when he was mixing the studio take he was going for a more refined, a bit more radio-friendly sound.

That is what I hate about 'Fury' – the album version, in my opinion, is so far from that biting, raw energy and funkiness of the live version he perfomed on a TV show. Even the rhythmic feel of the album version is quite different. There's a far bigger difference between these than between the versions of Endorphinmachine.

[Edited 2/5/17 6:23am]

Thank you SO much for your thoughts, with the great description re: Fury: "so far from that biting, raw energy and funkiness of the live version he perfomed on a TV show. Even the rhythmic feel of the album version is quite different."

I love revisiting the SNL Fury performance. I'm going to go do that and also play the album version.

KaresB said:

rednblue said:

KaresB said:

.
I prefer the live version too, but I guess the main difference is that when he was mixing the studio take he was going for a more refined, a bit more radio-friendly sound.

That is what I hate about 'Fury' – the album version, in my opinion, is so far from that biting, raw energy and funkiness of the live version he perfomed on a TV show. Even the rhythmic feel of the album version is quite different. There's a far bigger difference between these than between the versions of Endorphinmachine.

[Edited 2/5/17 6:23am]

Thank you SO much for your thoughts, with the great description re: Fury: "so far from that biting, raw energy and funkiness of the live version he perfomed on a TV show. Even the rhythmic feel of the album version is quite different."

I love revisiting the SNL Fury performance. I'm going to go do that and also play the album version.

.

Well I've just revisited that SNL Fury performance and to be honest now I don't hear that much of a difference So I've either seen a different TV show performance of this song (no, it wasn't the Brits), or it was just my mind rearranging the song in my head automatically (that happens too), LOL.
Sorry.

rogifan said:

KaresB said:

He was an excellent guitarist too and I love his playing just as much as I love Hendrix or Santana or Jeff Beck or other greats – but don't fool yourself thinking that these (mainly) rock guitarists are anywhere near the leage of giants like John McLaughlin, Attila Zoller, Pat Metheny etc (I could go on for ages).

I admire Prince for a lot of things but when you're examining him only as a guitar player, he was good, but very far from being near the greatest ones. AND IT'S OK. It doesn't take away anything from what a truly unique and amazing wonder he was.

How do we define the greatest? The three guys you mentioned are all (mostly) within the genre of Jazz. Are you essentially making the argument that no (rock) musicians can compare to Jazz musicians?

.

You can never define "The greatest" of course – yet the stupid music press tries to do that all the time.

I didn't mean any musician is better than the other simply because they belong to a different genre. I don't believe in genre-labels either. For me Public Enemy is far closer to the jazz approach than someone like Jamie Cullum will ever be, for example.

The guys I mentioned happen to play music that's far more often associated with the jazz label than with rock, but that's not the point.

When you're comparing musicians purely on the basis of how good they are on their instrument, you'll have to look not only for technique, but also their knowledge of music, their knowledge of dozens of different scales (that's almost like the equivalent of how many different languages you speak), the depths of their musical vocabulary etc – and of course, perhaps even more importantly, what are they "saying" through their music.
Prince's musical vocabulary AS A GUITARIST is far from John McLaughlin's, for example. When Prince was improvising solos he most often resorted to playing within a couple of scales he was comfortable in and played a LOT of well-rehearsed licks that sound like improvising but we know he was obsessed with rehearsing his ass off. So his guitar playing simply cannot even be compared to McLaughlin's or Metheny's. These guys "speak dozens of languages" on the guitar and are able to improvse novels while Prince often "improvised" fancy little poems.

If you want to get to know the true giants of improvisation check out the likes of Ravi Shankar, Béla Szakcsi-Lakatos, Bill Evans, Yehudi Menuhin etc, etc.

Yes, look far outside the "rock" box.

KaresB said:

rogifan said:

KaresB said: How do we define the greatest? The three guys you mentioned are all (mostly) within the genre of Jazz. Are you essentially making the argument that no (rock) musicians can compare to Jazz musicians?

.

You can never define "The greatest" of course – yet the stupid music press tries to do that all the time.

I didn't mean any musician is better than the other simply because they belong to a different genre. I don't believe in genre-labels either. For me Public Enemy is far closer to the jazz approach than someone like Jamie Cullum will ever be, for example.

The guys I mentioned happen to play music that's far more often associated with the jazz label than with rock, but that's not the point.

When you're comparing musicians purely on the basis of how good they are on their instrument, you'll have to look not only for technique, but also their knowledge of music, their knowledge of dozens of different scales (that's almost like the equivalent of how many different languages you speak), the depths of their musical vocabulary etc – and of course, perhaps even more importantly, what are they "saying" through their music.
Prince's musical vocabulary AS A GUITARIST is far from John McLaughlin's, for example. When Prince was improvising solos he most often resorted to playing within a couple of scales he was comfortable in and played a LOT of well-rehearsed licks that sound like improvising but we know he was obsessed with rehearsing his ass off. So his guitar playing simply cannot even be compared to McLaughlin's or Metheny's. These guys "speak dozens of languages" on the guitar and are able to improvse novels while Prince often "improvised" fancy little poems.

If you want to get to know the true giants of improvisation check out the likes of Ravi Shankar, Béla Szakcsi-Lakatos, Bill Evans, Yehudi Menuhin etc, etc.

Yes, look far outside the "rock" box.

Thanks, rogifan! I had the same question. Also, KaresB, would you be up for telling us a "rock box" musician or two who you do find relatively talented (within "rock box" world) on guitar? I apologize, and I understand if you don't want to, especially considering that you advised looking "far outside the 'rock' box" (and I will) and that you don't believe in genre-labels. I really appreciate your comment about Public Enemy, by the way.

Would you also include tone, volume of notes, how much sequenced notes "run together" (please excuse my awful lack of music vocabulary), other parts of "interpretation" in what to look at when looking at how "good" playing is? If so, you've probably already included these under other terms.

My posts are often too long, so I decided against noting that there are plenty more live versions of Fury than the one from SNL--didn't mean to assume you were recalling that one.

KaresB said:

Why did Prince shy away from recording more amazing guitar solos in studio?

I think because first and most important he was a songwriter of popsongs. The instruments were part of the mix and not dominent in most songs he released. In concert this was somehow different. However I think his vault is still full of amazing guitar solos.

KaresB said:

rednblue said:

That's a great point!

.

Might sound great but actually the opposite is true. Playing for an audience, in most cases, negatively effects how you play because you either feel pressured by their expectations or you get carried away by the response and you start playing for them like a bad actor, instead of going inside and playing what your soul dictates. When the crowd is cheering you're tempted to play your flashier licks and you're thinking of girls wetting their panties by seeing you instead of thinking about what you want to express through your music.

So for the untrained ears you'll end up sounding more bombastic, while what you've played is more of a showoff than truly inspired music.

There's never a way of dictating what is inside that artists soul unless you're that artist, lol, regardless of their facial expressions or theatrics. The artist could be envisioning the same things they've seen in live settings while recording in the studio. You can speak for yourself during those moments, but you can't exactly speak for others, regardless of the amount of musical training you have attained.

scorp84 said:

KaresB said:

.

Might sound great but actually the opposite is true. Playing for an audience, in most cases, negatively effects how you play because you either feel pressured by their expectations or you get carried away by the response and you start playing for them like a bad actor, instead of going inside and playing what your soul dictates. When the crowd is cheering you're tempted to play your flashier licks and you're thinking of girls wetting their panties by seeing you instead of thinking about what you want to express through your music.

So for the untrained ears you'll end up sounding more bombastic, while what you've played is more of a showoff than truly inspired music.

There's never a way of dictating what is inside that artists soul unless you're that artist, lol, regardless of their facial expressions or theatrics. The artist could be envisioning the same things they've seen in live settings while recording in the studio. You can speak for yourself during those moments, but you can't exactly speak for others, regardless of the amount of musical training you have attained.

no, she's right, when you know even one person is there, it affects how you feel and how you play either because you're self conscious or you want to impress or you get nervous or whatever. One of my mentors said it once, "even if you are ignoring the person, you know in the back of your mind that they are there" it changes things. When you're alone, you don't mind hitting bad notes, sounding like a beginner or anything else and it's more adventurous and creative too.

purpleshadow said:

He's one of the best guitar players as we know but why didn't he showcase more of what he could do with the guitar in his studio work. I listen to a song like guitar and the guitar solo is so underwhelming compared to what he could do live. Same with most of his songs.. I don't think he has enough memorable guitar solos in his work considering he's one of the best guitar players.

He could've had way more memorable guitar solos in his music if he wanted..

[Edited 2/4/17 13:57pm]

Probably for the same reason he didnt let rip with big piano solos or drum and bass solos. He was crafting songs in the studio where each instrument had its place, including vocals. The sum of the parts made up the songs where no one particular part was there to simply show off.

Live on the other hand allows for more showing off and he often allowed his band, including himself, to show off their chops at some points in the show. He clearly loved the guitar, but it is a testamnet to his songwriting skills that he hardly ever allowed any single instrument take over and dominate. The song was more important than the "look what I can do" wow factor of his shredding skills.

RodeoSchro said:

KaresB said:

rogifan said:

KaresB said: How do we define the greatest? The three guys you mentioned are all (mostly) within the genre of Jazz. Are you essentially making the argument that no (rock) musicians can compare to Jazz musicians?

.

You can never define "The greatest" of course – yet the stupid music press tries to do that all the time.

I didn't mean any musician is better than the other simply because they belong to a different genre. I don't believe in genre-labels either. For me Public Enemy is far closer to the jazz approach than someone like Jamie Cullum will ever be, for example.

The guys I mentioned happen to play music that's far more often associated with the jazz label than with rock, but that's not the point.

When you're comparing musicians purely on the basis of how good they are on their instrument, you'll have to look not only for technique, but also their knowledge of music, their knowledge of dozens of different scales (that's almost like the equivalent of how many different languages you speak), the depths of their musical vocabulary etc – and of course, perhaps even more importantly, what are they "saying" through their music.
Prince's musical vocabulary AS A GUITARIST is far from John McLaughlin's, for example. When Prince was improvising solos he most often resorted to playing within a couple of scales he was comfortable in and played a LOT of well-rehearsed licks that sound like improvising but we know he was obsessed with rehearsing his ass off. So his guitar playing simply cannot even be compared to McLaughlin's or Metheny's. These guys "speak dozens of languages" on the guitar and are able to improvse novels while Prince often "improvised" fancy little poems.

If you want to get to know the true giants of improvisation check out the likes of Ravi Shankar, Béla Szakcsi-Lakatos, Bill Evans, Yehudi Menuhin etc, etc.

Yes, look far outside the "rock" box.

I think this is interesting, because I agree with you, insofar as issues of technique and musical vocabulary goes - and I know far less about music than you evidently do, but I've always been aware that there is pretty limited range of stuff in terms of scale etc going on with P's guitar solos. That said, watching/hearing him let rip on a guitar is still one of the greatest pleasures in my life, and it's not a technical thing, it's an expressive thing...and yes, sometimes he was grandstanding and showing off (the RRHOF is that in spades), but mostly it's the impression that he just opens himself up and a huge wail comes flooding through him, that he's not actually playing anything, something is playing itself through him. The sound he makes is somehow so primal, and ecstastic, and painful, and transcendent, and spiritual and sexual all at the same time. Someone described is here once as 'messianic ejaculate' and I think that's right. It's like the sound of the universe coming. And that's not about technique or scale for me, it much more basic and energetic than that. And I find it truly miraculous.

jayseajay said: