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].