Lead vs Rhythm - only guitar?


dlwalke
Full Access
Joined: 02/02/19
Posts: 240
dlwalke
Full Access
Joined: 02/02/19
Posts: 240
03/07/2021 6:24 pm

If I could get more letters into the title field that might have been clearer, but it occurred to me the other day that I frequently hear guitarists (professional and aspiring) make the distinction between lead vs rhythm. Like, I heard Chrissie Hynde in an interview saying that she always just wanted to play rhythm and was never to interested in lead (which I take to be synonomous with melody and solo playing). Others clearly want to do the opposite. But I don't think I've heard that distinction made with respect to other instruments. For example, lead vs rhythm piano or xylophone or violin or harpsichord. So I'm asking myself (and now this board I guess) if that's because I don't attend to discussions of those other instruments so much or, alternatively, is there something unique to the guitar that lends itself to having it's practioners focus, or have the possibility of focusing on those different possible roles. Maybe it's just a quirk of history and the development of guitar styles (when did lead guitar become a thing). Or maybe my premise is incorrect and there are indeed lead vs rhythm violinists or violin parts (e.g., in an orchestra), for example.

[edit: I appreciate that most every instrument can do "a solo" - like at most every rock concert I've been to, but that doesn't quite seem like the same thing].


# 1
snojones
Full Access
Joined: 04/17/13
Posts: 694
snojones
Full Access
Joined: 04/17/13
Posts: 694
03/07/2021 8:14 pm

My take is that the way guitar has been used in Rock and Roll has effected the way people look at the instrument. When the Beatles first came out the press described their part in that sound was as George - Lead guitar, John - Rhythm guitar. Most every band since then, has been promoted with the same distinctions on what they do. Even though the best of them play both lead and rhythm at the same time. Hendrix is still revered for excelling at both. Beck, Johnson, a Bonamassa all come to mind in this regard.

There is no wall between lead and rhythm guitar except knowledge and practice. You simply need to decide what you want to do with that instrument you are practicing on, and go get it. If you like to play the rhythms of a song play the rhythm parts....

I think most people learn rhythm first and then go on to play lead if that interests them. Many people like to play rhythm guitar to accompany themselves singing, a task that guitar excells at. Many other people like to soar on lead lines.

Lead also usually needs somebody to cover the rhythm, so you will need other musicians (or some kind of karaoke robot) to cover this. So that is another consideration. Lead also requires a diffrent knowledge base and skill sets, beyond chording and keeping a beat.

It all comes down to where you want to go and how much you want to practice. It took me many years before I got interested in playing lead. I even described my self as a rhythm guitarist back then. Now I love playing lead as well, it just took me some time to figgure that out.


Captcha is a total pain in the........

# 2
JohnGC
Registered User
Joined: 06/18/19
Posts: 46
JohnGC
Registered User
Joined: 06/18/19
Posts: 46
03/08/2021 6:18 am

My goal is to play solo but I would also like to be able to play rythm so I can use a looping pedal to accompany the solo. Hopefully I will be able to achieve this seeing I have started learning well into my latter years.


# 3
JeffS65
Registered User
Joined: 10/07/08
Posts: 1,602
JeffS65
Registered User
Joined: 10/07/08
Posts: 1,602
03/08/2021 1:48 pm
Originally Posted by: dlwalke

If I could get more letters into the title field that might have been clearer, but it occurred to me the other day that I frequently hear guitarists (professional and aspiring) make the distinction between lead vs rhythm. Like, I heard Chrissie Hynde in an interview saying that she always just wanted to play rhythm and was never to interested in lead (which I take to be synonomous with melody and solo playing). Others clearly want to do the opposite. But I don't think I've heard that distinction made with respect to other instruments. For example, lead vs rhythm piano or xylophone or violin or harpsichord. So I'm asking myself (and now this board I guess) if that's because I don't attend to discussions of those other instruments so much or, alternatively, is there something unique to the guitar that lends itself to having it's practioners focus, or have the possibility of focusing on those different possible roles. Maybe it's just a quirk of history and the development of guitar styles (when did lead guitar become a thing). Or maybe my premise is incorrect and there are indeed lead vs rhythm violinists or violin parts (e.g., in an orchestra), for example.

[edit: I appreciate that most every instrument can do "a solo" - like at most every rock concert I've been to, but that doesn't quite seem like the same thing].

This is true, really. And for the record, I think someone should aspire to be a lead xylophoninst!

I do think it comes down to the nature of guitar and popular music. In many ways, rock, country, blues and so forth all have a very rhythmic sense to them. Versus classical music is more about orchestration and parts and movements and so forth. To me, though elememts of rhythmic playing would exist in a classical style, rhythm is no what defines the style. In rock/country/blues etc, rhythm is mostly the point and lead playing is just a subset of those styles.

I should note that even in classical playing, there are soloists, so the style is not without precedent with regards to a player taking a part that is made for a single player that, for all intents and purposes, showin' are off their chops.

A rock song can't really exist without the rhythm but can without a lead so in a manner of speaking, seperating them explains their role.


# 4
ChristopherSchlegel
Guitar Tricks Instructor
Joined: 08/09/05
Posts: 8,328
ChristopherSchlegel
Guitar Tricks Instructor
Joined: 08/09/05
Posts: 8,328
03/08/2021 2:34 pm
Originally Posted by: dlwalke. . . is there something unique to the guitar that lends itself to having it's practioners focus, or have the possibility of focusing on those different possible roles.[/quote]

There are two factors that led to the distinction of lead vs. rhythm playing.

1. The guitar is capable of playing melodically & harmonically. You can play more than one note at a time which isn't possible on many other instruments.

2. Traditionally in popular music those roles have been separated as a matter of orchestrating or arranging.

Relatively few other instruments can play more than one note at a time. Among those that can are the piano & it's associated percussion family instruments (glockenspiel, xylophone, vibes, marimba, etc.) & violin family (viola, cello, bass).

And while it's possible to play harmonies & full chords on those other instruments they are typically used in an orchestral or ensemble setting in which there is no traditional need to conceptually distinguish the parts. The piano might take a solo or featured melodic part in a concerto or a jazz band. But it's just regarded as one aspect of what is possible on the piano. But you already do that with the right hand of the piano. So it's more a matter of arrangment in the tune or song.

[quote=dlwalke]Or maybe my premise is incorrect and there are indeed lead vs rhythm violinists or violin parts (e.g., in an orchestra), for example.

The violin or xylophone might take a solo, but again it's just regarded as featuing the instrument in the arrangement. There's no need for the player to fundamentally change the technique or approach to the instrument.

When the other orchestral instruments play harmonic parts they are usually just part of a chord. The entire string, horn or wind section plays a chord, each player getting one note of the chord. Either because it's not possible to play more than one note at a time (horns, winds), or not desirable sonically (strings), traditionally the harmony has been split one note to an instrument for a more precise result.

Historically & culturally those instruments have very clearly designated roles & structured paths to learning.

Conversely the guitar has a much more do-it-yourself cultural history. And that means you can play as much or a little as you want. And since many people used it as accompaniment (chords to support a melody, either sung or played on another instrument) that's the origin of rhythm guitar.

Also, prior to electric guitar it was difficult to hear the guitar playing single note melodies in an ensemble. Especially compared to the other orchestral instruments!

But once pickups & amps were available jazz players (Charlie Christian being notable) jumped at the chance to play solo lines! And lead guitar was born. It's also worth noting that lead playing requires a significant different physical playing technique from rhythm chord strumming and sometimes a different set of timbre parameters through the use of effects.

Once popular music (jazz, blues, rock, etc.) started featuring guitars as the primary harmonic & melodic instruments it helped to conceptually designate the division of labor in the band based on what any given player was doing.

Also worth noting is that while Tarrega (1800s) & Segovia (1900s) both developed a repertoire for classical guitar, their approach was much more holistic in the sense that "rhythm & lead" were combined or integrated into one whole. The guitarst simply played all the music of a piece at the same time with no need to distinguish parts of the music; very much like piano playing.

Hope that helps!


Christopher Schlegel
Guitar Tricks Instructor

Christopher Schlegel Lesson Directory
# 5
john of MT
Full Access
Joined: 10/08/09
Posts: 1,525
john of MT
Full Access
Joined: 10/08/09
Posts: 1,525
03/08/2021 3:44 pm
Originally Posted by: snojones

My take is that the way guitar has been used in Rock and Roll has effected the way people look at the instrument. When the Beatles first came out the press described their part in that sound was as George - Lead guitar, John - Rhythm guitar. Most every band since then, has been promoted with the same distinctions on what they do. Even though the best of them play both lead and rhythm at the same time. Hendrix is still revered for excelling at both. Beck, Johnson, a Bonamassa all come to mind in this regard.

I agree; however, the distinction goes further back. My association with R&R starts almost at its beginnings. At least that far back, many if not most bands, especially local un-signed groups, were drums and three guitars; lead, rhythm and bass (maybe a sax or keyboard in the mix... in the earliest days, upright bass handled the duty until bass guitars made their move)

At least... that's what I think I remember.


"It takes a lot of devotion and work, or maybe I should say play, because if you love it, that's what it amounts to. I haven't found any shortcuts, and I've been looking for a long time."
-- Chet Atkins
# 6
arozk.o.va676
Registered User
Joined: 03/10/21
Posts: 1
arozk.o.va676
Registered User
Joined: 03/10/21
Posts: 1
03/10/2021 8:51 am

When comparing how hard those two lists are to play, it isn’t an easy answer. There are plenty of easy strumming chord progressions (rhythm) used in songs, but there are also difficult strumming progressions that can be a challenge even for advanced guitarists. There are easy solos (lead) that most beginners can learn, while there are complicated solos that only the top virtuoso guitarists can play. The key point to remember is that both rhythm and lead guitar can be easy or difficult – it depends on what you want to play.

GarageBand


# 7

Please register with a free account to post on the forum.